The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV

[Rippon]

There has been so much of a big deal made about the differences between the text of the 84 NIV contrasted with the text of the 2011 NIV. In reality most of the differences are quite minor;and most are not related to inclusive language.

Is that clear?

 

[Rippon]

You don't bother to read or retain information. That's why you ask your incessant series of questions that you have asked over and over again.

The changes for the NIV were based upon the following factors:changes in English, progress in scholarship and concern for clarity. Just about all Bible versions have revisions and updates --aside from notable exceptions like the Weymouth,Phillips,Darby etc.

Have you forgotten that the 2011 NIv took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV? Why don't you think things out before typing?

Wayne Leman did some research on 16 Bible translations. His work is:Gender Inclusive language in English Bible Versions: A Quantified Study.

The following chart was at the conclusion. It surveyed 106 verses with respect to gender inclusive renderings or lack thereof.

CEV : 89.6%
NRSV : 87.7%
NCV : 83%
NLT : 82.1%
TNIV : 80.2%
TEV : 79.2%
GW : 79.2%
NET : 59%
ISV : 52.4%
HCSB : 33.0%
ESV : 27.4%
NIV : 20.8%
NASB : 17.1%
NKJV : 15.1%
RSV : 10.4%
KJV : 4.7%
____________________________________________________
The 2011 NIV is probably around the 65% percentile range.

Do you get the picture?

 

[Rippon]

Snips

Again, I have gleaned the following data from Robert Slowley.

I will show where the 1984 NIV and TNIV wording is identical, but where the 2011 NIV differs. The 84/TNIV above and the 2011 edition below.

Gen.

2:25
The man
Adam
3:5
of it
from it
4:1
mark seasons
mark sacred times
8:19
on the earth
on land
9:3
moves
moves about
15:5
heavens
sky
17:26
same day
very day
23:15
me and you?
you and me?
24:14
girl
young woman
31:28
good-by
goodbye
25:11
will come from your body
will be among your descendants
37:3
ricly ornamented robe
ornate robe
38:30
given the name
named

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you get the picture?

The basic question still comes down to , why so much inclusive renderings for gener issues though?

Why not keep that aspect same as 1984 edition had?

 

[Rippon]

The basic question still comes down to , why so much inclusive renderings for gener [sic]issues though?

Boy, you never interact with what I actually post. The old expression of "In one ear and out the other." doesn't even apply to you. It doesn't even enter your consciousness. That's the first step of the process for most people. Therefore you cannot retain what you have never actually read. You quote my posts and yet you register no sign of life.

Why not keep that aspect same as 1984 edition had?

I have said this before. Is the 1984 NIV some kind of Gold Standard with you regarding inclusive language? Since the ESV and HCSB use more inclusive language than the 84 NIV --does that mean they do not measure-up to your standard of the proper level of inclusive language?

Is the NET Bible on your no-no list also? It registers with just a little less inclusive language than the 2011 NIV.

Since the NLT uses more inclusive renderings than the TNIV --does that make it liberal in your eyes?

The old Modern Language Bible of 1969 used more inclusive language than the present-day ESV. Has it crossed your line of acceptability? Just what is your line?

Too many questions for you to digest? Try line-by-line.

 

[Yeshua1]

Boy, you never interact with what I actually post. The old expression of "In one ear and out the other." doesn't even apply to you. It doesn't even enter your consciousness. That's the first step of the process for most people. Therefore you cannot retain what you have never actually read. You quote my posts and yet you register no sign of life.

I have said this before. Is the 1984 NIV some kind of Gold Standard with you regarding inclusive language? Since the ESV and HCSB use more inclusive language than the 84 NIV --does that mean they do not measure-up to your standard of the proper level of inclusive language?

Is the NET Bible on your no-no list also? It registers with just a little less inclusive language than the 2011 NIV.

Since the NLT uses more inclusive renderings than the TNIV --does that make it liberal in your eyes?

The old Modern Language Bible of 1969 used more inclusive language than the present-day ESV. Has it crossed your line of acceptability? Just what is your line?

Too many questions for you to digest? Try line-by-line.

I am not stating here that the Niv 2011 is a bad translation, nor is the net bible, nor the HCSB etc,,,

Just was asking why the need to go so much into inclusive renderings, where there is really no valid support for revising such an amount from the 1984 edition?

In many ways, that version would still to be preferred over 2011 update...

 

[Rippon]

Why is it such a problem for you to answer direct questions?

Just was asking why the need to go so much into inclusive renderings,

It has a smidgeon more inclusive language than the NET Bible and about 15% less than the TNIV. Is the NET Bible worthy of your condemnation on that account?

I have asked you several times already --Is the 1984 NIV your Gold Standard when it comes to the amount of inclusive language you find acceptable? The ESV and HCSB use more inclusive language than does the 1984 NIV. Do you have a problem with that?

where there is really no valid support for revising such an amount from the 1984 edition?

I have gone over this innumerable times with you Mr. Wall. Do you still wish to claim amnesia?

In many ways, that version would still to be preferred over 2011 update...

And I have asked you countless times to do your homework and specify why.

Your own words :"in many ways" --so get to work and itemize some of these "many ways."

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is it such a problem for you to answer direct questions?

It has a smidgeon more inclusive language than the NET Bible and about 15% less than the TNIV. Is the NET Bible worthy of your condemnation on that account?

I have asked you several times already --Is the 1984 NIV your Gold Standard when it comes to the amount of inclusive language you find acceptable? The ESV and HCSB use more inclusive language than does the 1984 NIV. Do you have a problem with that?

I have gone over this innumerable times with you Mr. Wall. Do you still wish to claim amnesia?

And I have asked you countless times to do your homework and specify why.

Your own words :"in many ways" --so get to work and itemize some of these "many ways."

My "gold standard" as you state it in English versions would be the 1977 edition Nasb, but still also value the 1984 Niv/Esv/ and NKJV also....

Isn't it strange that in the new edition, went so much further in gender renderings than before?

 

[Rippon]

My "gold standard" as you state it in English versions would be the 1977 edition Nasb, but still also value the 1984 Niv/Esv/ and NKJV also....

You ask the same questions over and over but don't have the capacity to answer clear questions.

The 1977 NASB has even less I.L. than the 1984 NIV. Is the 1984 NIV guilty in your eyes of going too soft on I.L.?

Should the ESV and HCSB scale-back their inclusive language renderings to the level of the 1984 NIV? Yes or no. Give reasons.

Isn't it strange that in the new edition, went so much further in gender renderings than before?

You are strange.

The 2011 NIV scaled-back the inclusive renderings of the TNIV --about 15% less according to some. So the new edition lessened the amount of I.L. as compared with the prior edition --not more.

 

[Yeshua1]

You ask the same questions over and over but don't have the capacity to answer clear questions.

The 1977 NASB has even less I.L. than the 1984 NIV. Is the 1984 NIV guilty in your eyes of going too soft on I.L.?

Should the ESV and HCSB scale-back their inclusive language renderings to the level of the 1984 NIV? Yes or no. Give reasons.

You are strange.

The 2011 NIV scaled-back the inclusive renderings of the TNIV --about 15% less according to some. So the new edition lessened the amount of I.L. as compared with the prior edition --not more.

was comparing their amount of renderings to what had been done in the 1984 edition of the NIV though, not Tniv....

There will never been an exact answer to how and when the gender renderings should be affected, but quite confident that the 1984 Niv is much closer to what was intended then the 2011 revision in this area...

 

[Rippon]

You ask the same questions over and over but don't have the capacity to answer clear questions.

Should the ESV and HCSB scale-back their inclusive language renderings to the level of the 1984 NIV? Yes or no. Give reasons.

Please answer the above.

The 2011 NIV scaled-back the inclusive renderings of the TNIV --about 15% less according to some. So the new edition lessened the amount of I.L. as compared with the prior edition --not more.

Do you acknowledge the truthfulness of the above?

 

[Rippon]

I have said this before. Is the 1984 NIV some kind of Gold Standard with you regarding inclusive language? Since the ESV and HCSB use more inclusive language than the 84 NIV --does that mean they do not measure-up to your standard of the proper level of inclusive language?

Answer the above. Don't duck and hide.

Is the NET Bible on your no-no list also? It registers with just a little less inclusive language than the 2011 NIV.

Since the NLT uses more inclusive renderings than the TNIV --does that make it liberal in your eyes?

The old Modern Language Bible of 1969 used more inclusive language than the present-day ESV. Has it crossed your line of acceptability? Just what is your line?

Please answer my questions. That's the purpose of a forum. Don't quote me and then turn around and not deal with what I have asked. Be honest and organized.

 

[Rippon]

Exodus

In the following snips the 1984 NIV and TNIV are the same. The 2011 differs.

The 84NIV/TNIV reading will be above and the 2011 reading below.

2:1
house
tribe

2:8
and
so

2:12
glancing
looking

6:3
known
fully known

12:43
Passover
Passover meal

12:45
eat of it
eat it

12:46
one house
the house

14:31
great power
mighty hand

15:25
became sweet
became fit to drink

18:12
eat bread
eat a meal
_____________________________________________________________________
"They've changed the 1984 NIV in so many verses!"

Yeah, that's been the rallying cry. I'm just giving you the raw data. The hue and cry has been a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please answer the above.

Do you acknowledge the truthfulness of the above?

Yes, the amount of inclusive language renderings in the 1984 Niv was the limit to what should be used in a translation, and while the Niv 2011 had less than the 2005 edition states nothing, as many panned that one as being a bad version!

 

[Rippon]

Yes, the amount of inclusive language renderings in the 1984 Niv was the limit to what should be used in a translation,

Congrats! You have finally answered one of my questions without your normal evasive routine. The 1984 NIV is your Gold Standard --your line in the sand which should not be crossed with respect to the amount of inclusive language that is allowed in a Bible translation.

The question is: What about the ESV and HCSB? They both use more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV. They have crossed your line. So they must also be considered inferior to you in that regard. Remember, you need to be consistent.

and while the Niv 2011 had less than the 2005 edition states nothing, as many panned that one as being a bad version!

As I have told you repeatedly --your frequent use of the exclamation mark is absurd. You use it much too often after having said something of little significance.

Here is what some have said regarding the 2011 NIV:

Rod Decker :"Overall, however, it is an improvement of an otherwise fine translation."

Thomas P. Nass : "We believe that no other current translation would be a significant improvement over the NIV...When we apply the evaluative critera...we believe the NIV emerges as the better option."

Craig Blomberg : I am convinced that the updated NIV achieves the best combination of accuracy and clarity of meaning most frequently...the updated NIV seems to serve best the broadest cross-section of purposes and audiences."

 

[McCree79]

I like my NIV 84. It is what I am used to. Plus, I'm too cheap to replace all of them

The NLT has WAY more inclusive language and nobody complains about. Not like the NIV11 anyway. The NIV84 "movement" is the new KJVO movement. It was a very, very popular translation. It is human nature to get upset when it changes. The most popular English translation in the world was changed....regardless f the changes. It was going to upset people.

I am still surprised the SBC speaks out against the NIV11 and not the NLT. Makes no sense. Maybe we want to promote the HCSB IDK.

I do like the HCSB by the way....not knocking it. It is slowing becoming a better translation with updates.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like my NIV 84. It is what I am used to. Plus, I'm too cheap to replace all of them

The NLT has WAY more inclusive language and nobody complains about. Not like the NIV11 anyway. The NIV84 "movement" is the new KJVO movement. It was a very, very popular translation. It is human nature to get upset when it changes. The most popular English translation in the world was changed....regardless f the changes. It was going to upset people.

I am still surprised the SBC speaks out against the NIV11 and not the NLT. Makes no sense. Maybe we want to promote the HCSB IDK.

I do like the HCSB by the way....not knocking it. It is slowing becoming a better translation with updates.

Use and like the HCSB, as it appears to be a more conservative version of the Niv translation....

Think also that the NLT is good for what it was translated for, in the sense of being the first bible for a new Christian, but would not stick to it as aprimary version afetr developing some bible time...

 

[Rippon]

Use and like the HCSB, as it appears to be a more conservative version of the Niv translation....

Please tell us how the NIV is more liberal than the NIV.

Do you also think the NKJV is more conservative than the HCSB?

Think also that the NLT is good for what it was translated for, in the sense of being the first bible for a new Christian,

Consulting the NLT often would be a good idea for one who has been a Christian for a good number of years.

 

[McCree79]

Please tell us how the NIV is more liberal than the NIV.

Well, I guess the NIV is exactly as liberal as the NIV(and conservative)

....you mean HCSB.....I know.

He maybe referring to the top comparison chart from the attached link. It does compare NIV84, not 2011 however.
http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

[Yeshua1]

Please tell us how the NIV is more liberal than the NIV.

Do you also think the NKJV is more conservative than the HCSB?

Consulting the NLT often would be a good idea for one who has been a Christian for a good number of years.

Do see the NKJV and the Nasb versions as both neing being formal and literal translations
And the Nlt is best suited to be used for devotional, or else as a learner bible, but should also be using something more formal!