The Holman Christian Standard Version

[banana]

The CSB is available in the Bible app that everyone uses now

 

[Yeshua1]

I have given an extensive number of comparisons with respect to inclusive language in the major translations. I have even done a thread or two that did not include the 2011 NIV or TNIV. The ESV, NET and HCSB have a good deal of inclusive language --a great deal more than the 1984 NIV. Any rational person would have to agree that the inclusive language in those versions were perfectly reasonable.

The new CSB has more I.L.than its predecessor. That puts it close to the level of the NET. And the NET's usage is a bit less than the current NIV. Hence --the controversy is a tempest in a teacup.

That is why for serious study of the Bible, best to use ones such as Nasv/Nkjv/1984 Niv!

 

[McCree79]

That is why for serious study of the Bible, best to use ones such as Nasv/Nkjv/1984 Niv!

I would not include the NIV84 on that list. I grew uo on it and it holds a special place in my hearr, but it does not compare to the other two on that list for "serious" bible study. I like it, but it isn't as close to the other two, nor the NIV2011, when compared to original manuscripts.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I would not include the NIV84 on that list. I grew uo on it and it holds a special place in my hearr, but it does not compare to the other two on that list for "serious" bible study. I like it, but it isn't as close to the other two, nor the NIV2011, when compared to original manuscripts.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Good point!

 

[Rippon]

I would not include the NIV84 on that list. I grew uo on it and it holds a special place in my hearr, but it does not compare to the other two on that list for "serious" bible study. I like it, but it isn't as close to the other two, nor the NIV2011, when compared to original manuscripts.

I'd like you to clarify. Did you intend to say "...nor to the NIV2011, when compared to the original manuscripts."?

In other words, is your meaning that the NIV2011 is good for the serious Bible study, but the 1984 NIV is not?

 

[Rippon]

I have given an extensive number of comparisons with respect to inclusive language in the major translations. I have even done a thread or two that did not include the 2011 NIV or TNIV. The ESV, NET and HCSB have a good deal of inclusive language --a great deal more than the 1984 NIV. Any rational person would have to agree that the inclusive language in those versions were perfectly reasonable.

The new CSB has more I.L.than its predecessor. That puts it close to the level of the NET. And the NET's usage is a bit less than the current NIV. Hence --the controversy is a tempest in a teacup.

I would like Y-1 to respond to the above.

 

[McCree79]

I'd like you to clarify. Did you intend to say "...nor to the NIV2011, when compared to the original manuscripts."?

In other words, is your meaning that the NIV2011 is good for the serious Bible study, but the 1984 NIV is not?

Yes, the NIV2011 has fixed many, if not most of the weaknesses of the 84 edition. Laying aside the gender issue, it is a great translation. It is one of the 4 translations I use on my Olive Tree in study. ASV, ESV and NKJV are usually the other 3. I do somtimes remove the ASV in favor of the NASB, but I find that the ESV and NASB are usually very similar, so i find no need to use both.

I have stated multiple times in different threads the things the 2011 does better in the 1984. While i habe just begun to learn Greek, I base this judgment on criticism of the NAC and Pillar commentaries of the 1984 edition. Most of the issues the authors had with the '84 have been corrected.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the NIV2011 has fixed many, if not most of the weaknesses of the 84 edition. Laying aside the gender issue, it is a great translation. It is one of the 4 translations I use on my Olive Tree in study. ASV, ESV and NKJV are usually the other 3. I do somtimes remove the ASV in favor of the NASB, but I find that the ESV and NASB are usually very similar, so i find no need to use both.

I have stated multiple times in different threads the things the 2011 does better in the 1984. While i habe just begun to learn Greek, I base this judgment on criticism of the NAC and Pillar commentaries of the 1984 edition. Most of the issues the authors had with the '84 have been corrected.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That may be true, but the inclusive language thing would be a deal breaker for many of us!
And botht the Nasv/Nkjv are better translations than either Niv!

 

[Yeshua1]

I would like Y-1 to respond to the above.

The 1984 Niv would be a superior translation to use, but the Nasv/Nkjv would both be better for serious scripture studies!

 

[Rippon]

That may be true, but the inclusive language thing would be a deal breaker for many of us!

But "thwe inclusive language thing" is not a problem for many of you with respect to the ESV, HCSB, NET and NLT.

And botht the Nasv/Nkjv are better translations than either Niv!

So says someone who never provides specifics.

 

[Rippon]

I have given an extensive number of comparisons with respect to inclusive language in the major translations. I have even done a thread or two that did not include the 2011 NIV or TNIV. The ESV, NET and HCSB have a good deal of inclusive language --a great deal more than the 1984 NIV. Any rational person would have to agree that the inclusive language in those versions were perfectly reasonable.

The new CSB has more I.L.than its predecessor. That puts it close to the level of the NET. And the NET's usage is a bit less than the current NIV. Hence --the controversy is a tempest in a teacup.

I will try for a third time.

Y-1 : Respond to the above.

 

[McCree79]

But "thwe inclusive language thing" is not a problem for many of you with respect to the ESV, HCSB, NET and NLT.

.

There is a difference between the amount and locations of "gender inclusive" in the ESV vs. NIV. Especially with the word "huioi". This word almost always includes a male meaning and is legal term in the adoption and INHERITANCE laws of first century Rome. To deny women to be called "sons of God" is to deny them the inheritance of God. The daughters of a father typical did not get the inheritance, but the sons. So to tell a woman in the 1st century that she was a "son" to God was to tell her she would get an inheritance from God. It is instance like this where I find the ESV more accurate then the new NIV. That being said, 90%(number is approximate based on my experience) of those agaisnt the NIV don't even go there

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[reformed_baptist]

I would not include the NIV84 on that list. I grew uo on it and it holds a special place in my hearr, but it does not compare to the other two on that list for "serious" bible study. I like it, but it isn't as close to the other two, nor the NIV2011, when compared to original manuscripts.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

We don't have the original manuscripts - translations are based on 'texts' which are themselves the best educated guess of the compilers as to the contents of the autographs.

 

[reformed_baptist]

There is a difference between the amount and locations of "gender inclusive" in the ESV vs. NIV. Especially with the word "huioi". This word almost always includes a male meaning and is legal term in the adoption and INHERITANCE laws of first century Rome. To deny women to be called "sons of God" is to deny them the inheritance of God. The daughters of a father typical did not get the inheritance, but the sons. So to tell a woman in the 1st century that she was a "son" to God was to tell her she would get an inheritance from God. It is instance like this where I find the ESV more accurate then the new NIV. That being said, 90%(number is approximate based on my experience) of those agaisnt the NIV don't even go there

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

It is not quite that simple, υἱός, is certainly most frequently translated 'son' but it can also be translated as: child/ children (Matt 27:9, Rev 12:5) and friend (Matt 9:15). The reference in Rev 12:5 is especially interesting as it reads: υἱὸν ἄρσεν (where ἄρσεν translates as 'male' and υἱὸν as 'a ....... child')

Furthermore whilst the idea that under Roman law women could not inherit preaches well I am not entirely convinced that it accurate, for example both David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 3.3 and Thomas, Yan (1991) "The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law", in A History of Women from Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Harvard University Press. pp. 133–135 state that daughetrs had the same rights of inheritance as sons when the father died intestate. Furthermore women could own property under their tutor.

However, all that being said, the majority of the times we read υἱός 'son' is the preferable translation as long as we allow that term to have it's full semantic range of meanings.

 

[McCree79]

It is not quite that simple, υἱός, is certainly most frequently translated 'son' but it can also be translated as: child/ children (Matt 27:9, Rev 12:5) and friend (Matt 9:15). The reference in Rev 12:5 is especially interesting as it reads: υἱὸν ἄρσεν (where ἄρσεν translates as 'male' and υἱὸν as 'a ....... child')

Furthermore whilst the idea that under Roman law women could not inherit preaches well I am not entirely convinced that it accurate, for example both David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 3.3 and Thomas, Yan (1991) "The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law", in A History of Women from Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Harvard University Press. pp. 133–135 state that daughetrs had the same rights of inheritance as sons when the father died intestate. Furthermore women could own property under their tutor.

However, all that being said, the majority of the times we read υἱός 'son' is the preferable translation as long as we allow that term to have it's full semantic range of meanings.

That goes along with what i said. It "almost" always means male, which implies it can mean other....it can also be used to refer to animals.

I also said women typically did not receive an inheritance, not they did or could not. Even in Jewish culture the male son was like to get the inheritance or a larger amount.

The term is too documented as a term of inheritance and was rarely used for daughters in 1st century Rome. It was the males who were the prized adopted child and with it came the legal rights of inheritance.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

It is not quite that simple, υἱός, is certainly most frequently translated 'son' but it can also be translated as: child/ children (Matt 27:9, Rev 12:5) and friend (Matt 9:15). The reference in Rev 12:5 is especially interesting as it reads: υἱὸν ἄρσεν (where ἄρσεν translates as 'male' and υἱὸν as 'a ....... child')

Furthermore whilst the idea that under Roman law women could not inherit preaches well I am not entirely convinced that it accurate, for example both David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 3.3 and Thomas, Yan (1991) "The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law", in A History of Women from Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Harvard University Press. pp. 133–135 state that daughetrs had the same rights of inheritance as sons when the father died intestate. Furthermore women could own property under their tutor.

However, all that being said, the majority of the times we read υἱός 'son' is the preferable translation as long as we allow that term to have it's full semantic range of meanings.

Matthew 27:9 ....so you claim there is a possibility that the a child was a priest??? A woman priest??? The word must be "son" The priests are the ones who likely set the price

*and Revelation 12:5 obviously refers to a male as well

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

We don't have the original manuscripts - translations are based on 'texts' which are themselves the best educated guess of the compilers as to the contents of the autographs.

Original "language" manuscripts is what I meant. Autographs are different has you noted

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[reformed_baptist]

That goes along with what i said. It "almost" always means male, which implies it can mean other....it can also be used to refer to animals.

Fair enough

I also said women typically did not receive an inheritance, not they did or could not. Even in Jewish culture the male son was like to get the inheritance or a larger amount.

Actually the first born son usually received the bulk of the inheritance in Jewish law

The term is too documented as a term of inheritance and was rarely used for daughters in 1st century Rome. It was the males who were the prized adopted child and with it came the legal rights of inheritance.

Ok, so why, if this term was not used to refer to women would women read it in the bible and think it referred to them? Would they not rather assume that such verses as Eph 1:5 were addressed to the men?

 

[reformed_baptist]

Matthew 27:9 ....so you claim there is a possibility that the a child was a priest??? A woman priest??? The word must be "son" The priests are the ones who likely set the price

Hmmmm, you might wish to read what I actually wrote and respond to that rather then a strawman!

I said υἱός is rightly translated as 'Children' in that verse, I never mentioned women priests![/quote]

*and Revelation 12:5 obviously refers to a male as well

So, John wrote 'a male son' in Rev 12:5 did he - isn't that a little redundant? Are there other kinds of sons I wonder?

 

[reformed_baptist]

Original "language" manuscripts is what I meant. Autographs are different has you noted

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

the point was that translations are based on 'texts' not individual manuscripts