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!
Yes, sometimes the NASB95 translates a word as man, when humans or people are in view. But, on the other hand, it does not translate son of man as humankind, because the phrase is used as a reference to the Messiah.Like your favorite translation --the NASB. It has that paternalistic bias.
Yet another falsehood, the quotes demonstrating the translations were done on purpose have been supplied.You are judging motives of translators, as you always do. Your accusation is false.
Note, we are talking about Psalm 8:4, not Hebrews 2:6. This switcharoo is disingenuous.I will quote from How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss. But rememember at that time they were quoting from the TNIV:
"Does pluralizing the construction blur the application of this Psalm to Jesus in Hebrews 2:6?
Yet another switcharoo, now they are talking about Psalm 8:8, not 8:4.The author is not claiming that the psalm refers exclusively to Christ, but that the destiny of humanity as expressed in the psalm ('to be crowned with glory and honor,' vv. 6-8) has been fulfilled in Christ (v.9). The reference to 'him' in verse 8 is not to Jesus but to humankind. [2011 NIV 'them'] Though man's (= humanity's) original destiny was to be croned with glory and honor and for creation to be subject to him )see Gen. 1:28), 'at present we do not see everything subject to him.' In its present fallen state, humanity has not achieved its true destiny.
No, the NIV translation obliterates the veiled reference to Jesus as "son of man."Jesus, however, through his suffering and death has fulfilled the ultmate destiny of humanity by being made for a time 'a little lower than the angels,' but now 'crowned with glory and honor' (vv.7,9)...Psalm 8,both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sensse well." (pages 106,107)
Again, you have repeatedly judged the motives of translators with your "bottom lines" which have tuned into your signature.Yet another falsehood, the quotes demonstrating the translations were done on purpose have been supplied.
You are a riot. I had quoted : "Does pluralizing the construction blur the application of this Psalm to Jesus in Hebrews 2:6?"Note, we are talking about Psalm 8:4, not Hebrews 2:6. This switcharoo is disingenuous.
Of course you conveniently left out the eariler paragraph:Yet another switcharoo, now they are talking about Psalm 8:8, not 8:4.
And as has been posted before, if humanity is in view in Psalm 8:4, then rather than translate it as "the son of man" it should be translated as "a son of man." This keeps humanity in the mix, yet does not obliterate the reference to Jesus as identified by Hebrews 2:6.
You're a bottom-feeder and should be ashamed of yourself. But you have no capacity to even blush.Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God.
No, it does no such thing as illustrating that argument as you very well know. The translators of both Bible versions are godly, conservative scholars. You just don't care what you throw out to the public on this forum. Read the works of the translators of the NIV and then hang your head in shame for making repeated basless claims.Next, we get the "two wrongs make a right" liberal argument, since the NET translation of this verse is deeply flawed, it is ok for the NIV translation to be deeply flawed.
Why should people take your word for anything you say Van? If the NET translation for that passage is so bad -- why do you still recommend that version? You are tremendously inconsistent.Stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB.
You went overboard years ago with your continued deliberate distortions, lies and slander.Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God.
Rippon attempted to justify one mistranslation because another version also mistranslated the verse. This is the liberal two wrongs make a right argument.No, it does no such thing as illustrating that argument as you very well know. The translators of both Bible versions are godly, conservative scholars. You just don't care what you throw out to the public on this forum. Read the works of the translators of the NIV and then hang your head in shame for making repeated basless claims.
More slander, more absurd argumentation, more use of fallacy. As a study bible, I recommend the NASB95, and suggest the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV should be used as comparison bibles. Now, if a person cannot understand the NASB, then perhaps the WEB, NET or HCSB would more suitable over and against the ESV, NIV, NIrV, NCV, and NLT.Why should people take your word for anything you say Van? If the NET translation for that passage is so bad -- why do you still recommend that version? You are tremendously inconsistent.
More emtpy and slanderous charges, devoid of merit.You went overboard years ago with your continued deliberate distortions, lies and slander.
Now to differ with Rippon's choice of translation is to denigrate God's Word. This is all Calvinists have to offer, bash and then shuck and jive.Listen up: You need to stop your habitual denigration of the Word of God. Remember what the Scripture says about speaking idle words --you are guilty Van.
You lie so naturally. You know what you said is completely false and yet you don't care.Now to differ with Rippon's choice of translation is to denigrate God's Word.
Van the accomplished translator. You charge translators with a "willy nilly" use of phrases to translate one Greek word on occasion. It has to be done Van. Your favorite does it to. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the orginal and English much of the time.just as their [sic] is nothing wrong with attempting to address needless ambiguity, or willy nilly use of several English words to translate one Greek word meaning.
The NIV goes overboard and mistranslates the very inspired words of God to rewrite the text to say what it does not say. Many churches are dropping the NIV2011 like a hot potato because the NIV84 is not being provided to the public.
Yes, many of the older English translations had a paternalistic bias, translating words that referred to people as men, and therefore many modern translations are correcting those errant miscues. But the problem is that some modern translations go to far and change the intended meaning in the name of inclusive language. The NET and NIV translation of Psalm 8:4 provides just such an example of going too far.
Just because no modern English translation translates the same Greek word meaning with the same word or phrase consistently, does not mean that concordance should not be a goal of the translation team. Why translate the same Greek word as "High Priest" and as "Chief Priest?"
Welcome words indeed.I will not express any view on the ESV, NIV or NLT.
As I said earlier --that is very welcome news to us folks.Sorry, but I will not express any view on the ESV, NIV or NLT.
I want to compare the ESV, HCSB and NET Bible versions with one another to see how much or how little they have used inclusive language in 19 texts. I'll toss in the 84 edition of the NIV too.
Symbols : E = ESV;H = HCSB;N= NET Bible;84 = the 1984 NIV edition.
Well, go for it then Van.Rather than claiming inclusive language is better than non-inclusive language, perhaps we should ask what was the intended message of the inspired text. Are all these changes, more accurate translations or are some or all less accurate translations?
Rather than claiming inclusive language is better than non-inclusive language, perhaps we should ask what was the intended message of the inspired text. Are all these changes, more accurate translations or are some or all less accurate translations? Gee, we might need to study the actual inspired word meanings.