Featured Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

We can spend a lot of time arguing over the best version. I choose the KJV because I believe it’s God’s word written in English. The main thing is that each of us have The Word (Jesus) abiding in our hearts. He is the only true Word. He speaks to our inward man and reveals what otherwise would be hidden truth without him speaking The eunuch was reading Isaiah, but couldn’t understand it until God sent a preacher (Phillip) to preach Jesus from the book of Isaiah.

 

Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today's English Version was published by American Bible Society on January 1, 1966.

By 1969, 17.5 million copies sold.
By 1971, 30 million copies sold.
By 2010, 100 million copies sold.

Over the years 4 editions have been published: 1966, 1967, 1971, and 1976. A later revision in 1992 added inclusive language.

Here are a few illustrations of various Good News publications.

The original translator was Robert Bratcher (1920-2010), staff member of the American Bible Society. In his later years Bratcher became controversial, primarily due to some public comments he made at a Southern Baptist Convention seminar in Dallas, Texas (1981); for replacing the "blood" of Jesus in several New Testament passages (e.g., Romans 5:9); and translating "young woman," instead of "virgin" as used in the King James Version (Isaiah 7:14). Due to financial losses from reduced donations from conservative baptists, there was a parting between the American Bible Society and Robert Bratcher. Here is an Associated Baptist Press (SBC) article at his passing.

*****

And here is a short article about the artist Annie Vallatton (1915-2014) who made the line drawings that appeared in more than 100 million copies of the Good News Bibles.

Although I no longer use the GNT as a favorite Bible translation, I continue to receive inspiration from the 500 drawings of Annie Vallaton's stick figure theology in old copies of the Good News Bible.

 

Maybe you can get lost in the notes, but the vast percentage of its audience finds it perfectly satisfactory. A fine text is provided
and additional helps are given. I see no problem with that arrangement.

Because its new is a valid reason to dismiss it? The "funny" translational choices that you think are in the CSB are in the HCSB. Don't confuse the two versions.

It has both formal elements in it (more than you would expect if you haven't examined it) and dynamic renderings. It has more of the latter than the former. But its a solid translation. You need to see the listing of its translators.

Calling the translational choices "PC" says more about you than the NIV. Again, take a look at the quality of the translators.

 

To call the current crop of Bible translations a "dumbing-down" suggests that you are uninformed.

 

Why do you say that? It's a mediating translation. From the 1984 edition to the present incarnation the NIV has always been regarded as occupying the middle ground --a balanced approach. It's in the group of the NET, CSB and NAB. And I think the old MLB be in the center position as well.

 

I didn't dismiss it. Not sure why you think that.

The quality of the translators has nothing to do with translation choices that are more "politically correct."

 

Would those translators, (if indeed you know anything about them) be willing to compromise their principles? I'm beginning
to think that the charge of being P.C. is akin to being called a racist for any and all belief in the political world. In other words, it is completely baseless. The accusation is meant to mute conversation.

 

So you are ok with gender neutral language and gender inclusive language?

 

You are confused. Even your favorite Bible translations include gender inclusive language. "Yeah, but..." Yeah but what? You maintain that your favs use it less my favs. Oh, so now you acknowledge that inclusive language is used in your pet translations, but you move the goalposts now to the degree with which it is used in versions that you do not like.
To call the issue "gender neutrality" is absurd. None of the top 12 or even 20 or more evidence any such thing as gender-neutral renderings. That is a mythological non-entity. In today's parlance, it's a big fat nothing burger.

 

They all chose readability over accuracy!

 

Even when the driving purpose behind some modern versions is to get male headship/authority watered down, to get rid of they claim is excessive "masculine bias" in the English translation?

 

It called the rise of :Evangelical feminism"
To get the distinctions in spiritual leadership/authority of males watered down now!

 

As I have asked you repeatedly over the last dozen years or more ---demonstrate that your contentions are true by citing passages in the New Testament text of the NIV wherein all of your charges are evidenced. Don't merely accuse -- but prove.

 

Whereas you are neither readable and hardly accurate.

 

I pulled on my IG test score a 140, so have to be something!

 

The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation

 

Hey boy. Do your own homework. Don't rely on others. You make charges up out of thin air. Now is the day of reckoning. Cite passages in the New Testament text of the NIV that are indeed complicit of mud-slinging charges all these years. If you can't do it confess and repent. It will do your soul some good. More than likely you will evade and continue your mendacious campaign.

 

Have those who wrote the guidelines on how to translate gender issues from Boulder Co ever 'repented" yet that the Niv 2011 and Csb are bad versions due to excessive gender rendering issues?