• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hcsb

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For the most part, the HCSB is a word-for-word translation, but in some cases, a dynamic equivalence method was employed to get closer to the original direction of the text...

And that is no different than the way the 2011 operates.

The HCSB is my preferred version where I might otherwise use the NIV, New Living Translation, etc., i.e., when a very simple translation will make more progress than a more technical and difficult one.

I don't know why you put the NIV in a different category than the HCSB. They have a common kinship. The NLTse is rather dynamic (a little less so since its revisions in 2004 and 2007). It is not a mediating translation like the HCSB,2011 NET Bible,NAS and ISV.

However,i wouldn't say that the NLTse is a "very simple" one. The CEV or NCV might better fit that designation.
 

glfredrick

New Member
And that is no different than the way the 2011 operates.

With ONE major difference... The HCSB does not do away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct. Gender matters in Scripture, Galatians 4, for instance, where Paul (correctly) says that we will ALL (male and female) be adopted "sons" of God and joint heirs with Christ. That is not a typo nor a sexist remark. That is a fact due to the adoption laws of Paul's culture that stipulated that only male sons could inherit the estate of their father, whether natural born or brought into the family. Each son had to be "adopted" when they came of age before they could inherit. Paul was making an explicit claim that even women who are "in Christ" could be adopted to the same level as sons, for all are seen -- in a legal sense -- as "sons" who qualify to inherit Daddy's estate. Good news indeed that could otherwise be wiped out by gender neutral language.



I don't know why you put the NIV in a different category than the HCSB. They have a common kinship. The NLTse is rather dynamic (a little less so since its revisions in 2004 and 2007). It is not a mediating translation like the HCSB,2011 NET Bible,NAS and ISV.

Because the NIV2011 (and earlier versions, as well as NET, etc.) all are based completely in dynamic equivalence, and none concord in a word-for-word fashion.

However,i wouldn't say that the NLTse is a "very simple" one. The CEV or NCV might better fit that designation.

Depends on whom you ask. Every translation has an intended reading level, and the NIV has typically been geared to a 7th grade readling level. Some others lower than that. Some so low that they are suitable for 1st grade levels, but they also tend to wash away some of the critical "meat" of the Word.

The KJV is the most difficult reading level, and that not because of the particular words used, but rather that so many of the words are now archaic and require a word study of their own before they can rightly be understood by an average congregation.

Here is one chart -- there are many other similar ones:



Translation Grade Level

KJV 12

RSV 12

NASB 11

NRSV 11

ESV 10

NIV 7-8

HCSB 7-8

CEB 7

NKJV 7

NLT 6

GW 5

Message 4-5

NCV 3

NIRV 2
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
With ONE major difference... The HCSB does not do away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct.

Well,you are leveling false charges with that remark. People like you say those kind of things so flippantly. You do know who the translators are --don't you?

Gender matters in Scripture, Galatians 4, for instance, where Paul (correctly) says that we will ALL (male and female) be adopted "sons" of God and joint heirs with Christ.

Perhaps amidst the hoopla some folks have made of things -- some truth needs to be spoken. This is from Galatians 4:6 in the 2011 NIV:

"Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,the Spirit who calls out 'Abba,Father.' "




Because the NIV2011 (and earlier versions, as well as NET, etc.) all are based completely in dynamic equivalence, and none concord in a word-for-word fashion.

Neither the NIV nor the NET Bible were based on dynamic equivalence. That's a mistaken notion that you have. As I have time again explained --both are in the mediating range along with the ISV,NAB and HCSB.




Here is one chart -- there are many other similar ones:



Translation Grade Level

The chart is error-filled.

The NRSV is slightly less difficult to read than the ESV. So slight that they both should be put at the same numerical value.

NKJV at only 7? Come on. It has to be at least number 11. The CEB would be a lot less taxing. It's probably around a 6 or so.

The Message though very free still is not easy reading. It's probably around an 8 or 9.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
have used both HCSB/Niv 2011, but prefer HCSB due to not having the ole Gender issues coming into the textrenderings!
use mainly the 1977 NAS/HCSB, and find the 1984 NIV actually better suited to me than 2011 revision!
 

glfredrick

New Member
Well,you are leveling false charges with that remark. People like you say those kind of things so flippantly. You do know who the translators are --don't you.

Yup... Some good scholars, but wrong in the way that they interpreted a few things -- and they admit it up front in the preface along with their reasoning for doing so.

By the way, do you own stock in NavPress? :laugh:
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yup... Some good scholars, but wrong in the way that they interpreted a few things -- and they admit it up front in the preface along with their reasoning for doing so.

They do no such thing,and you know it.

You,in essence were saying in your earlier post that the 2011 NIV has done away with critical gender distinctions.That is a totally bogus charge. I will not let you go ahead with your hand grenade attacks.

You have said they have obliterated gender distinctions because they wanted to be politically correct. Since your premise is completely false --so is your conclusion of the matter. Instead,they wanted to be gender-accurate. You're not going to find egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.

Try to be truthful in the future.

By the way, do you own stock in NavPress? :laugh:

You are trying to lighten the mood. However,I will not stand idly by while slander is coming from your keystrokes.
 

glfredrick

New Member
They do no such thing,and you know it.

You,in essence were saying in your earlier post that the 2011 NIV has done away with critical gender distinctions.That is a totally bogus charge. I will not let you go ahead with your hand grenade attacks.

You have said they have obliterated gender distinctions because they wanted to be politically correct. Since your premise is completely false --so is your conclusion of the matter. Instead,they wanted to be gender-accurate. You're not going to find egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.

Try to be truthful in the future.



You are trying to lighten the mood. However,I will not stand idly by while slander is coming from your keystrokes.

From the preface of the NIV 2011:

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.

In other words, the interpretations of the translators, instead of as accurate as possible word-for-word translation.

One of the main reasons the task of Bible translation is never finished is the change in our own language, English. Although a basic core of the language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex linguistic factors continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. One of the shifts that creates particular challenges to writers and translators alike is the manner in which gender is presented. The original NIV (1978) was published in a time when “a man” would naturally be understood, in many contexts, to be referring to a person, whether male of female. But most English speakers today tend to hear a distinctly male connotation in this word. In recognition of this change in English, this edition of the NIV, along with almost all other recent English translations, substitutes other expressions when the original text intends to refer generically to men and women equally. Thus, for instance, the NIV (1984) rendering of 1 Corinthians 8:3, “But the man who loves God is known by God” becomes in this edition “But whoever loves God is known by God.” On the other hand, “man” and “mankind,” as ways of denoting the human race, are still widely used. This edition of the NIV therefore continues to use these words, along with other expressions, in this way.

A related shift in English creates a greater challenge for modern translations: the move away from using the third-person masculine singular pronouns — “he/him/his” — to refer to men and women equally. This usage does persist at a low level in some forms of English, and this revision therefore occasionally uses these pronouns in a generic sense. But the tendency, recognized in day-to-day usage and confirmed by extensive research, is away from the generic use of “he,” “him,” and “his.” In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the “common” English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a “they,” “their,” or “them” to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” This generic use of the “indefinite” or “singular” “they/them/their” has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, “anyone” or “everyone” or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns.

In other words, "We have fiddled about with the gender distinctions that God placed in His Word."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In other words, the interpretations of the translators, instead of as accurate as possible word-for-word translation.

Your wild interpretation of perfectly reasonable translation practices shows absolutely no discernment or a willful disregard for truth.

And there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. That is a silly ideal that would be tortuous to read --IOW,not a real translation.

The translators of the HCSB,NET BIble and ISV do virtually the same things in their respective versions as the 201 NIV.


In other words, "We have fiddled about with the gender distinctions that God placed in His Word."
You are spouting nonsense. You have a complete disdain for the NIV that is irrational. Any good sense that you may voice in other areas is negated by your reckless remarks here.

Look in vain for egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glfredrick

New Member
Your wild interpretation of perfectly reasonable translation practices shows absolutely no discernment or a willful disregard for truth.

And there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. That is a silly ideal that would be tortuous to read --IOW,not a real translation.

The translators of the HCSB,NET BIble and ISV do virtually the same things in their respective versions as the 201 NIV.


You are spouting nonsense. You have a complete disdain for the NIV that is irrational. Any good sense that you may voice in other areas is negated by your reckless remarks here.

Look in vain for egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.

Well... I didn't expect you to agree with me. :laugh:

I'm not actually being reckless, and I'm also probably not the person you think concerning this issue. I have issues with translators skewing the words that God clearly gave us, and in the original languages, gender is always evident as you well know.

As far as modern translations, you will find that I am a big fan, for I believe that the Word of God SHOULD be brought in the common language of the people, as it was when it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- the languages of the marketplace and commonly used. God could have caused the Scriptures to be written in Classical Greek, but He did not. That is a clue to us that perhaps the gift of "speaking in tongues" is nothing more than making the Word of God accessable to God's people in a way that they can readily understand, take to heart, and obey. Remember, I am arguing FOR the HCSB, and I have used the NIV, Message, NLT, and other modern translations in my every day ministry work. I naturally prefer a translation that can concord, and the NIV does not, so other than use as a reading tool, it is limited for me.

I have the same issues with the newest version of the NIV that a LOT of other biblical scholars have -- they took a couple things too far. Otherwise, I would greatly prefer that pastors use the NIV in any guise than say the KJV, which leads to greater errors in doctrine than any other version I've seen used (save the ones published by the cults).

So, try to understand the nuances of my argument instead of just (wrongly) thinking that I am just another NIV basher.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well... I didn't expect you to agree with me.

What you have said in posts 22 and 28 is reprehensible. Misrepresentation is a nice way of describing what you have done. Please retract your remarks. The way you toy with words is disgraceful.

I'm not actually being reckless,

Yes,you are.

I have issues
You certainly have.

with translators skewing the words that God clearly gave us, and in the original languages,
Please furnish some specific examples and we shall see who is doing the skewing.

gender is always evident as you well know.
You need to explain yourself.

As far as modern translations, you will find that I am a big fan, for I believe that the Word of God SHOULD be brought in the common language of the people, as it was when it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- the languages of the marketplace and commonly used. God could have caused the Scriptures to be written in Classical Greek, but He did not. That is a clue to us that perhaps the gift of "speaking in tongues" is nothing more than making the Word of God accessable [sic]to God's people in a way that they can readily understand, take to heart, and obey. Remember, I am arguing FOR the HCSB,
All of the above applies to the 2011 NIV as well.

I have the same issues with the newest version of the NIV that a LOT of other biblical scholars have -- they took a couple things too far.
If you have problems with specific renderings --that's one thing. But you should not condemn a fine translation of the Word of God by your demeaning attitude. It is not godly. Falsehoods never are.

So, try to understand the nuances of my argument instead of just (wrongly) thinking that I am just another NIV basher.
You cannot "nuance" your way out of what you have done. An apology is in order.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glfredrick

New Member
What you have said in posts 22 and 28 is reprehensible. Misrepresentation is a nice way of describing what you have done. Please retract your remarks. The way you toy with words is disgraceful.



Yes,you are.

You certainly have.

Please furnish some specific examples and we shall see who is doing the skewing.

You need to explain yourself.

All of the above applies to the 2011 NIV as well.

If you have problems with specific renderings --that's one thing. But you should not condemn a fine translation of the Word of God by your demeaning attitude. It is not godly. Falsehoods never are.

You cannot "nuance" your way out of what you have done. An apology is in order.

Huh?

Not gonna happen... I've not said anything that about half the Evangelical world has not said. You are VERY vested in the NIV 2011. Do we now start a new category, NIV 2011 only? :tonofbricks:
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Huh?

Not gonna happen... I've not said anything that about half the Evangelical world has not said.

The Evangelical world that believed the tripe put out about the TNIV?! The Evangelical world is not very discerning and some of its leaders are at fault.

Who cares what half of the Evangelical world says if it is wrong? Are you a parrot?

Why don't you follow Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15?

Let me make this very plain for you.

By saying that the 2011 NIV does away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct -- you are promulgating two lies.

When you have said that the 2011 NIV is completely based on dynamic equivalence --you are either utterly uninformed or lying.

When you wrest the words of the 2011 NIV Preface to arrive at perverse conclusions you are sinning. This is especially so when you said your completely unfounded IOW :"We have fiddled about with gender distinctions that God has placed in His Word."

When you twist words in this fashion you are being reckless and irresponsible. You have no right to say anything to Robert Snow,Winman or Van accusing them of twisting words. You would be a hypocrite because you have evidenced a considerable twisting of yourself in your campaign against the 2011 NIV.

I have said before that if you have objections regarding certain renderings in the 2011 NIV then have at it. I don't regard it as a perfect translation. I have sent in suggestions for its improvement. But to castigate it in such a juvenile fashion is disgraceful. You should retract your ill-considered words.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The Evangelical world that believed the tripe put out about the TNIV?! The Evangelical world is not very discerning and some of its leaders are at fault.

Who cares what half of the Evangelical world says if it is wrong? Are you a parrot?

Why don't you follow Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15?

Let me make this very plain for you.

By saying that the 2011 NIV does away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct -- you are promulgating two lies.

When you have said that the 2011 NIV is completely based on dynamic equivalence --you are either utterly uninformed or lying.

When you wrest the words of the 2011 NIV Preface to arrive at perverse conclusions you are sinning. This is especially so when you said your completely unfounded IOW :"We have fiddled about with gender distinctions that God has placed in His Word."

When you twist words in this fashion you are being reckless and irresponsible. You have no right to say anything to Robert Snow,Winman or Van accusing them of twisting words. You would be a hypocrite because you have evidenced a considerable twisting of yourself in your campaign against the 2011 NIV.

I have said before that if you have objections regarding certain renderings in the 2011 NIV then have at it. I don't regard it as a perfect translation. I have sent in suggestions for its improvement. But to castigate it in such a juvenile fashion is disgraceful. You should retract your ill-considered words.

Just curious, do you hold the NIV 2011 superior to NASV/ESV/HCSB then?
 

Amy.G

New Member
The SBC I attend uses SS literature from Lifeway. The scripture is quoted both from the KJV and the HCSB. The class I attend doesn't use this literature very much. I was wondering what some thoughts here are on this version of the bible?

Back to the OP. I have just started reading the HCSB and I enjoy it very much. I find that once I start reading I can't seem to put it down. My current SS class uses the same material as yours Robert and it's helping in that respect too. I still use the NKJV as that is what the pastors preaches from, but it's nice to read a fresh version for a change. So far I give the HCSB a big :thumbsup:.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Evangelical world that believed the tripe put out about the TNIV?! The Evangelical world is not very discerning and some of its leaders are at fault.

Who cares what half of the Evangelical world says if it is wrong? Are you a parrot?

Why don't you follow Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15?

Let me make this very plain for you.

By saying that the 2011 NIV does away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct -- you are promulgating two lies.

When you have said that the 2011 NIV is completely based on dynamic equivalence --you are either utterly uninformed or lying.

When you wrest the words of the 2011 NIV Preface to arrive at perverse conclusions you are sinning. This is especially so when you said your completely unfounded IOW :"We have fiddled about with gender distinctions that God has placed in His Word."

When you twist words in this fashion you are being reckless and irresponsible. You have no right to say anything to Robert Snow,Winman or Van accusing them of twisting words. You would be a hypocrite because you have evidenced a considerable twisting of yourself in your campaign against the 2011 NIV.

I have said before that if you have objections regarding certain renderings in the 2011 NIV then have at it. I don't regard it as a perfect translation. I have sent in suggestions for its improvement. But to castigate it in such a juvenile fashion is disgraceful. You should retract your ill-considered words.

This is a reminder for GLF.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I stand on what I said.

You're standing the truth on its head.

Your charges are absurd and sinful.

The way you have "translated" the words in the Preface to the 2011 NIV is such a wresting of the meaning -- I fear that you would take any translation of the Bible and do the same sort of twisting.

Instead of engaging in gossip on the topic of gender roles in the 2011 NIV--prove your contentions with specific examples. If you have nothing then just stop making stuff up --or parroting others.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just curious, do you hold the NIV 2011 superior to NASV/ESV/HCSB then?

I prefer the 2011 NIV. Others prefer other translations. Variety is the spice of life.

Each of the three you mentioned have their particular strengths and weaknesses. The 2011 NIV has advantages and disadvantages. I just think in a general sense it is better all-round than any other English version on the market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top