You're being redundant.
Based on your prior statements : do you think the NKJV and NASB are more conservative than the HCSB?
-
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!
The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Based on your prior statements : do you think the NKJV and NASB are more conservative than the HCSB?
The ESV and HCSB have more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV. So, in your opinion have they crossed the line? Have they become liberal?
Not a question of them being liberal or conservative, as both of them were translated by solidly Evangelical scholars, but more along the lines of them being less formal and literal....
All 3 of them are good, solid bible versions....
Not more conservative, but would say more formal and literal, and got it much better in regards to how much inclusive language to bring over into the English translation...
So in your estimation the amount of inclusive language used in the 1984 NIV used just the right amount. The ESV and HCSB have exceeded that proper measure.
The NKJV and NASB use even less inclusive language than the 1984 NIV. You are not clear. Is the 1984 NIV your gold standard with repect to the usage of inclusive language, or the NKJV or NASB?
Can you think of any places in the New Testament where the 1984 NIV should have used more inclusive language --or do you just enjoy making charges without doing any homework? When you make blanket statements without showing any evidence to support your claims --it makes you look kind of weak.
Would say that both the Nasb and the NKJV used the correct amount of inclusive renderings, as that would be sue to their translation philosophy, and that if one wanted to go the mediating translation route, the 1984 Nov had the right balance...
The amount of inclusive language in a bible version has little to do with the issue of the old models of literal, mediating and dynamic.
So you are backtracking. Earlier the 1984 NIV was your line in the sand, now the NKJV and NASB. Youi do waffle.
Have you actually done any personal research on this whole subject whatsoever? I had asked you if there are any places in the 1984 NIV where more inclusive language is needed. Answer the question if you have actually thought the question out. If you have done no homework on the matter than just admit it.
Studying last week, I came across Judges 5:27.
Unacceptable in both the NIV and NLT! - they removed the s*xist innuendo.
Rob
Thanks. I will check that out.
Rob, are you joking? It's hard to tell if you are speaking tongue-in-cheek.
If, by any chance you are serious, is there that much of difference between using at and between in order to keep the innuendo?
I was generally content with the usage of inclusive language in the TNIV; with just a few exceptions. The 2011 took a few steps backward to appease the ESV crowd.
I will have to report back to you at a future date to list any passages where the current NIV has used inclusive language inappropriately.
The NLTse uses about 22-25% more inclusive language than the NIV. I haven't checked that out either. But I don't know if I want to research that.
Both are wonderful Bible translations that we are fortunate to have.
I looked at it. I think he may have been joking. Not sure though.
Thanks.
Don't do any special research for me. I was just wondering if you noticed anything. I have both....if I want to know bad enough, I can look myself
.
LOL, no, I'm not kidding... I usually use winky's make my dry humor more noticeable.
I taught this passage last week in Sunday Adult Bible study. I had to nuance it a bit more than I do here.
Even the old KJV footnotes that the word in Hebrew there should be "between".
The passage doesn't say it directly but many of the Hebrew words used in the passage strongly imply that Sisera assaulted Jael, instigating her "pounding" him with a "peg" and smashing his head "between her legs".
What was done to her, she returned back to him.
The biblical innuendo is totally missing in the NIV.
Everett Fox translates the passage:
Water he asked for, milk she gave,
in a bowl for the valiant, she brought near cream.
Her hand to the peg she stretched out,
her right-hand to the workman's pounder.
She pounded Sisera, smashed his head,
she shattered and passed it through his temple.
Between her legs he bent down, he fell, he lay,
between her legs he bend down, he fell,
where he bent down, there he fell, ravaged!
Judges 5:25-27
Those were terrible days...
"In those days, there was no king in Israel;
each one would do what was right in his eyes." [21:25]
Rob
Y1, I'm still waiting for a response to the above. Surely since you have been so insistent that the current edition of the NIV is inferior to that of the 1984 --you must have some objective sense about you. To be fair and truthful you have to concede that there are certainly some places in the 84 model that are lacking compared with the 2011 NIV.
Is it too much to ask for you to acknowledge that the 2011 edition does a better job than its older sibling in some passages. Or do you just want to rely on just condemning it without any substance to make your case?
Would saya that how they handles the word Sarx/flesh was better done in the edition of the Niv, but they also went overboard in how many inclusive renderings allowed into the revision, especially as regarding Son of man and in areas regarding women and leadership!
I asked the above on April 14th. You have not given an answer.
So, from your silence on the matter it indicates that you really have no clue. You would rather just continue your old ways and offer sniper fire.