the Nib translators could have chosen to a bit more confining in jut how much inclusive language to include, as went a tad too far, in many opinions...
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Inclusive Language
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
the Nib translators could have chosen to a bit more confining in jut how much inclusive language to include, as went a tad too far, in many opinions...
The NIV translators could have chosen to [a bit more confining ?] in just how much inclusive language to include, as it went a tad too far, in the opinion of many.
I had to translate and correct your sloppy post in order to understand what in the world you are saying. Please, you have to take the time to edit your posts. It shows disrespect when you post with all your errors.
But my main beef with you is that you still do not address the questions I pose head on. R-E-A-D post #54 and respond to it D-I-R-E-C-T-L-Y.
Address the second statement of mine in post #54. It takes so long, if at all, for you to answer simple questions. Why is it so hard to answer easy questions?The 1984 Niv was not the final word on how to transalte a version to us, but do think that was a better one then the current edition...
Address the second statement of mine in post #54. It takes so long, if at all, for you to answer simple questions. Why is it so hard to answer easy questions?
What is the exact question? I have already answered that in my opinion, the 2011 revision went too far into inclusive renderings...
That the 1984 would be the preferred Niv version to use...
You are so stubborn, semi-literate, foggy-minded or whatever the case may be. Read post number 54, and address my second sentence. If you refuse to answer after my repeated plea I will refuse to waste any more time on your foolishness. This bad habit of yours is absurd. And I am not the only one who has noticed on all the forums you are involved with.What is the exact question? I have already answered that in my opinion, the 2011 revision went too far into inclusive renderings...
That the 1984 would be the preferred Niv version to use...
You are so stubborn, semi-literate, foggy-minded or whatever the case may be. Read post number 54, and address my second sentence. If you refuse to answer after my repeated plea I will refuse to waste any more time on your foolishness. This bad habit of yours is absurd. And I am not the only one who has noticed on all the forums you are involved with.
Would say that the intent was not to "liberalise" the 2011 Niv, but there was a response being made to what is called evangelical feminism in the church, that sees the Bible was somehow males biased, as in excluding them from leadership roles in the church for example...
There are four primary Bible versions being discussed in this thread :the 1984 NIV, the ESV, the HCSB and the NET Bible.
Honor the OP and don't go on side-trails.
For serious study of the bible, would rate them as follows:
1984 Niv
Hcsb
esv
net but would see their notes as very valuable!
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is the 1984 edition of the NIV the best because it has used the least inclusive language? And following that line of thought -- is the ESV the second best?
Is there a liberalizing of the text going on? Are Bible versions becoming "genderless" in a quest to follow the feminist movement?
Or is it possible that in these cases at least, the language of the HCSB and NET Bible reflects the original and speaks with accuracy to the target audience.
The above is what this thread is about. Addressing the questions would be helpful.
The above is what this thread is about. Addressing the questions would be helpful.
Not that the translators decided to become liberal in their theology, but that they decided to make too many decisions to go all inclusive in their new renderings...
"They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.Not that the translators decided to become liberal in their theology, but that they decided to make too many decisions to go all inclusive in their new renderings...
Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?
And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?
What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.
Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?
Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.
"They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.
Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?
And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?
What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.
Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?
Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.
The 1977 nas edition is my preferred english version to use, but that version has passages in it where I also do use the Niv/esv to look it up further, to gain more insight..
You seem to think that the 1984 niv/1977 Nasb/Nkjv did not nearly enough into considering the inclusive discussion while translating, but my point is that SOME inclusive renderings are acceptable, and perhaps warrented at times, but NOT to the extent tht was done in the 2005/2011 miv...
Okay.The 1977 nas edition is my preferred english version to use, but that version has passages in it where I also do use the Niv/esv to look it up further, to gain more insight..
Did I mention the NKJV in this thread? I don't recall doing so.You seem to think that the 1984 niv/1977 Nasb/Nkjv did not nearly enough into considering the inclusive discussion while translating,
Remember to honor the OP. Focus. You are to deal with the four that I mentioned throughout this thread. And I will allow you to discuss the 1977 NASB.but my point is that SOME inclusive renderings are acceptable, and perhaps warranted at times, but NOT...
Now why have't you done any comparisons that you promised way back in your post #17? Perhaps you post too much and you don't take the time to do any homework.
Why haven't you answered my questions from my previous post? Was I just wasting my time? Address a paragraph of it per post of yours. Get organized!
I'm bumping this. There have been no responses for almost one week.Remember to honor the OP. Focus. You are to deal with the four that I mentioned throughout this thread. And I will allow you to discuss the 1977 NASB.
Now why have't you done any comparisons that you promised way back in your post #17? Perhaps you post too much and you don't take the time to do any homework.
Why haven't you answered my questions from my previous post? Was I just wasting my time? Address a paragraph of it per post of yours. Get organized!
"They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.
Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?
And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?
What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.
Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?
Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.
It has been five months and Y1 has still not answered my questions though he had promised to do so.
"They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.
Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?
And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?
What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.
Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?
Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.
Prefer the Nas 1977, as it seems to have been translated closer to the literal construction of the greek text then the 1995 revision, and also do support for bible studies the 1984 Niv, as it is perhaps the best of translating in modern English what was intended to us from the Lord...
the 2011 Niv was a step backward, in its attempt to try to eliminate "gender bias", as that really is not in the Bible!
Prefer the Nas 1977, as it seems to have been translated closer to the literal construction of the greek text then the 1995 revision, and also do support for bible studies the 1984 Niv, as it is perhaps the best of translating in modern English what was intended to us from the Lord...
Why do you bother to even quote me when you completely ignore what I have said? You never learn. Address what I asked you otherwise what is the point of dialog?
Why do you bother to even quote me when you completely ignore what I have said? You never learn. Address what I asked you otherwise what is the point of dialog?
The 1977 edition of the Nas is NOT perfect translation, as NONE of those exist, but would be the closest to what the originals stated unto us, IMHO...
The 1984 Niv also is a better choice to use for serious bibler studies then the 2011 revision, and believe that many would also agree with me on that opinion...
The above contains eight questions. Answer them individually. Do not take side trails. Do not post irrelevancies. Stay on-point. You have never been able to do what I have asked. Others have asked you to comply with a common sense reply. You have never managed to do so regardless of the topic on this board or any other."They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.
Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?
And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?
What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.
Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?
Please make unprecedented history. Honor my requests.
Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.
The last paragraph was written for clarification. Pay attention. Focus, concentrate, ponder, organize and then post.