I have had multiple threads on the subject of inclusive language in the ESV. I even compared the ESV renderings to the same passages in the 1984 NIV. And that demonstrated that the ESV had a much higher rate of inclusive language than the 84 NIV. But your memory is faulty, so...
-
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!
New American Standard Bible 2020 Update
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
- Status
The 1984 Niv was a fine version, but the Esv is still much less inclusive then the 2011 Niv, correct?
The NIV has more inclusive language than the ESV. However, if 131 of its footnotes were put in the text, it would be approximately the same between the two.
A reminder when it comes to a gradation of inclusive language in various translations :
1984 NIV ---ESV ---HCSB---NET ----CSB ----2011 NIV ----TNIV -----NLT & NRSV
The ground beneath NET, CSB and NIV 2011 is a small plot when it comes to inclusive language.
You can say that again!
Whew! Tech problems. It's exhausting.
large space between them and the 1984 Niv, and esv though!
Many times you have treated the 1984 NIV with respect to inclusive language as a kind of Red Line that should not be crossed. But once I gave a number of examples, maybe 20 or more in which the ESV used more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV. You were fine with it. You didn't object, and neither did I, because the inclusive language was entirely appropriate. There was no feminist agenda. There was no P.C. plot. There was no scheme in which women were given the role as head of the household and thus supplanting the husband. There was no scheme in which women were to be elders and pastors. None of those things were present in the ESV examples, just as they are nonexistent in any verse of the 2011 NIV.
The 1984 Niv and 1977 Nas standards to show to us how to approach this issue of gender rendering in scriptures!
Is your mind mush? I just reminded you that you were fine with inclusive language of the ESV that was not present in the 1984 NIV. But you didn't dare say that the ESV "bowed down to political correctness and evangelical feminism." You didn't claim that the ESV "renderings go against traditional understanding of the text." Your posts exemplify not only false accusations, but a great deal of hypocrisy.
I stated that the esv did do some gender inclusive renderings, but were acceptable, while the Niv 2011 went way overboard and were not acceptable!
And you have never, and I mean never, proven any of your false allegations that you have made in the last 15 years against the NIV by showing specific passages from the text. What a coward, you sling throw mud and don't support anything by citing the text of the NIV to prove your reckless charges are true. What people need to be concerned about is you and your constant stream of misrepresentations rather than that of the NIV. All Bible translations have texts that show that Christians are not to bear false witness. You have done so endlessly.
To quote the departed Ted Cassidy said of you : "Apparently he is just blowing smoke --throwing out accusations that he is unwilling to defend or prove. " (7/18/2017)
In your world, guess no one ever spoke out against the 2011 Niv then, eh?
Produce the texts from the NIV to substantiate your unfounded claims. That's what I have been saying from Day One. You have never complied. You can't do it because nothing you have said against the NIV is true, but you go blissfully on the BB and other sites spewing your garbage.
Guess messing with Jesus as no longer identified as Son of man, or making Junia a fellow Apostle meant nothing to you?
That is a categorically false assertion.
in Psalm 8, that would be a true statement!
You had said that the NIV 2011 no longer sees Jesus as being the Son of man. That is a categorically false statement. It is not unique for you to say such disgustingly vile falsehoods regarding the NIV. But on you go spewing completely untrue assertions with regularity. You have no conscience.
I clarified, as the Niv decided to not tie Jesus as Son of man into psalm 8, correct?
Your brain is a sieve. How long will you persist in claiming ignorance about things that have been repeated for your benefit dozens of times? There are at least a dozen English Bible translations that render Psalm 8 in a fashion similar to that of the NIV.
I am glad though, that you have repudiated your false claim that the NIV "no longer sees Jesus as the Son of man." If you would only follow through and confess your many other false accusations regarding the NIV.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after3:15 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after3:15 PM Pacific.
- Status