• 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!

Is it time to "update" the NIV?

Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RipponRedeaux said:
In Robert Slowley's comprehensive comparison of the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV (as well as the TNIV) he states that in the 1984 edition the use of the word for occurred 7,219 times. In the 2011 edition it occurs 7,273 times. So the 2011 version increased the count by 54.
Regarding Romans 1:18 the CEB, EHV, NABRE, NCV, NLT along with the NIV, do not have the cherished word for. And you know what? It doesn't change the meaning of the verse one whit without it.

Concerning Isaiah 12:3 the same goes. The meaning of the passage is not hindered a bit with the precious word therefore. The following translations (among others) do not have that unnecessary word :
CSB, CEB, ESV, ISV, LEB, NABRE, NCV, NET, NLT, NRSV all joining with the NIV.

Over the years I have shown you that the singular they has been in use for more than 500 years. The usage began in your nation. It's not an Americanism alone. I have given you a sample of your own usage of the singular they, along with examples from James White and John MacArthur. It's just a fact of life in conversation. And it shows up in periodicals, newspapers and books.

I have also admitted to you that there are cases in the NIV in which it is awkward at times. Until ta or thon (I prefer the latter) can take its place the singular they is here to stay.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with those who have stated "concerns" over the over masculinity in the Bible, in the "overall " too much holding to now outdated views regarding men and women in culture and gender roles?
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
In Corinthians the 2011 changed reference to the body of believers, the local church to mean the individual believers. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RipponRedeaux said:
In Robert Slowley's comprehensive comparison of the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV (as well as the TNIV) he states that in the 1984 edition the use of the word for occurred 7,219 times. In the 2011 edition it occurs 7,273 times. So the 2011 version increased the count by 54.[
Click to expand...
I suppose that is some sort of recognition that the older version was wrong, but hardly wholehearted repentance.
Regarding Romans 1:18 the CEB, EHV, NABRE, NCV, NLT along with the NIV, do not have the cherished word for. And you know what? It doesn't change the meaning of the verse one whit without it.
Click to expand...
It changes our understanding, or should do. The reason why Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel is because it is the power of God to salvation. Why does that matter? BECAUSE (or FOR) the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. the gar is to show that verse 18 is intimately connected to what has gone before.
Concerning Isaiah 12:3 the same goes. The meaning of the passage is not hindered a bit with the precious word therefore. The following translations (among others) do not have that unnecessary word :
CSB, CEB, ESV, ISV, LEB, NABRE, NCV, NET, NLT, NRSV all joining with the NIV.
Click to expand...
This is even more important. We do not draw water from the wells of salvation in a vacuum. It is only the one who can say, verses 1 and 2 of whom verse 3 is true.
'Therefore' is a great big nine-letter word in English; the Hebrew word is a tiny connecting word. 'So' or even 'and' would do to show that is only the man who can say 'YAH, the LORD is my strength and my song; He has also become my salvation,' who will drink the water from the wells of salvation. It is vitally important to connect the verses together.
I have picked out only two examples because I have preached on them recently, and on each occasion I had to waste time explaining the connection between the verses. It shouldn't be necessary.
Over the years I have shown you that the singular they has been in use for more than 500 years. The usage began in your nation. It's not an Americanism alone. I have given you a sample of your own usage of the singular they, along with examples from James White and John MacArthur. It's just a fact of life in conversation. And it shows up in periodicals, newspapers and books.
Click to expand...
There is a tiny number of examples of older writers making foolish grammatical mistakes. The fact that such solecisms are becoming increasingly common shows how Newspeak is steadily becoming established.
I have also admitted to you that there are cases in the NIV in which it is awkward at times. Until ta or thon (I prefer the latter) can take its place the singular they is here to stay.
Click to expand...
If I believed that God is dead I would probably agree with you, but being of the persuasion that He is very much alive, I look forward to such abominations being consigned to the dustbin of history.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
Martin Marprelate said:
There is a tiny number of examples of older writers making foolish grammatical mistakes. The fact that such solecisms are becoming increasingly common shows how Newspeak is steadily becoming established.

If I believed that God is dead I would probably agree with you, but being of the persuasion that He is very much alive, I look forward to such abominations being consigned to the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...
You have gone beyond Van with his "deeply flawed" mantra. using the singular they is certainly not an abomination. But for you to say it is, well that may be considered an abomination.

What you call grammatical mistakes, although a vast improvement on your part, than to say an abomination, you are simply wrong. Using the words he, him or his referencing a mixed crowd is silly.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
Martin Marprelate said:
Don't be so silly yourself. Using 'they to refer to a mixed crowd is obviously correct. It is using the word to refer to a single person that is misleading and objectionable.
Click to expand...
Pardon me, You are partly correct. I meant when referencing an unspecified person, the use of he, him or his is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top