The NIV 2011 edition

[Martin Marprelate]

If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it.

One doesn't, and he won't.
There are one or two places where it is acceptable to mix singulars and plurals. Everyone and everybody are singular pronouns, but they always refer to more than one person. Therefore it is quite permissible for me to say, "Everyone who would like a Gideon Bible should come to the front and I will give them one." But one means 'one.' so to write " If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it" is ugly and horrible English and I don't care if Thackary or whoever it was wrote something similar once, I would not read such a sentence out loud.

 

[rlvaughn]

Martin, that is a play on the kind of words used in the 2011 NIV (singular they). My point was not that everyone has to embrace this kind of English, but that those who do should not complain about issues of political correctness -- because the politically correct gender speak is what is driving the widespread acceptance of the so-called singular they. Had I prefaced it a little better, it might have made more sense. Such as:

There was “political correctness” that bled into the 2011 NIV. I see no reason for its supporters to deny it. If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it.

 

[McCree79]

Mark Strauss I do not know, but I wouldn't give you tuppence for a Gordon Fee book. I had his commentary on 1 Corinthians at one point and threw it out. He is charismatic and by no means Reformed. Nor would I give you tuppence for that quote in Post #73. He must be aware of 1 Corinthians 1:22 where Paul ascribes Psalm 8:6 to the Lord Jesus Christ. Why does Fee ignore this? Because it would mess his argument up.

Surely his commentary is not that bad. It has gotten some good praise by John Piper and D.A. Carson. I went with Garland instead, but I found few critisms of Fee. I don't think I would throw it away

But he is a Pentecostal, you are definitely correct there. But charismatic believers come in all different levels of "fire" .

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

Even though it is true?

You are acting dense.

I clearly said that I disagreed with what that anonymous author had to say.

So don't give me that infantile "Even though it is true? bunkum.

 

[Rippon]

Both English experts and the NIV translators recognize/recognized that the use of singular they has been embraced and has expanded in modern times.

It has an old pedigree. It is not new. Expanded in the last 60 years --yes.

Now it is needful to realize that the political correctness was mediated to us through the translational philosophy of using modern updated language.

Nonsense. That aspect of translational philosophy is just plain reasonable. Tyndale and Luther would have been in full accord.
They both used modern, updated language. They put their translations in the common vernacular. There is nothing sinister or politically correct about that at all.

The committee studied "the contemporary use of gender language." They explain:

Your two quotes were from two separate sources --both were not from the NIV team.

The primary reason that singular they has been widely accepted is because of the gender language wars.

You're just regurgitating the same old bovine excrement.

 

[Rippon]

Mark Strauss I do not know, but I wouldn't give you tuppence for a Gordon Fee book. I had his commentary on 1 Corinthians at one point and threw it out. He is charismatic and by no means Reformed. Nor would I give you tuppence for that quote in Post #73. He must be aware of 1 Corinthians 1:22 where Paul ascribes Psalm 8:6 to the Lord Jesus Christ. Why does Fee ignore this? Because it would mess his argument up.

You are unhinged.

The book is perfectly fine -- one of the best in the market on the subject.

If something is true who happens to have a different denominational affiliation than yours don't dismiss his words as if his position could not possibly be right. He is a Bible scholar and widely respected.

Mark Strauss is a fine scholar in his own right. Check him out on YouTube and see what I mean. Do yourself a favor and think things through before you make such mischaracterizations.

 

[Rippon]

If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it" is ugly and horrible English and I don't care if Thackary or whoever it was wrote something similar once, I would not read such a sentence out loud.

Thackary was one of many writers who have used the singular they including Shakespeare himself. Your mission is futile.

 

[Rippon]

I am not insisting that everyone has to agree that Psalm 23 and Hebrews 2:5-9 refer to Christ;

I already corrected you about Psalm 23.

Hebrews 2:6-8 refers to mankind --humanity --not Christ. Most scholars acknowledge the obvious.

 

[Jerome]

Straight from the Marprelate blog:

marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-new-covenant/

"There are several other places in the O.T. where chadash is used. The reader can check them out for themselves by making an internet search."

 

[rlvaughn]

It has an old pedigree. It is not new. Expanded in the last 60 years --yes. [bold, rlv]

Thanks. I see you generally agree with the point I was making.

Nonsense. That aspect of translational philosophy is just plain reasonable. Tyndale and Luther would have been in full accord. They both used modern, updated language. They put their translations in the common vernacular. There is nothing sinister or politically correct about that at all.

Here you mix two ideas, one of which I specifically said they were not -- sinister (I didn't use that specific word, but I said that they did not deliberately insert a feminist-transgender-queer ideology into the Bible). Politically correct is not sinister, but conforms to the idea that language which could offend (e.g., in matters of gender identity) should be eliminated. This idea can not be disassociated with the changes in the way we identify gender in our our common vernacular.

Your two quotes were from two separate sources --both were not from the NIV team.

I think I gave five quotes from four different sources, so I am not certain of which two you are complaining. I assume that most understand that the Oxford English Dictionary source is unrelated to the NIV team.

The quote beginning "This generic use of the..." is found in the preface of NIV Bibles, above the name "The Committee on Bible Translation," 2010. These words can be found in NIV Bibles found online at Google Books, should anyone want to check. For examples:
NIV, The Jesus Bible, eBook
Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible-PR-KJV/NKJV/NIV/NLT
NIV, The Chronological Study Bible

The quote beginning "Working with some of the world’s leading experts..." is from Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation, also printed above the name "The Committee on Bible Translation," 2010. Feel free to show these are not associated with the 2011 NIV.

Another quote was not from the NIV team as a team, but an individual -- Craig Blomberg, who was a member of the team. He joined the The Committee on Bible Translation in 2008.

You're just regurgitating the same old bovine excrement.

Contra the field of dreams through which you wade, the Committee on Bible Translation was well aware that their decision on gender inclusive language was controversial because of the gender language wars, and therefore expended a good bit of energy to defend why they chose to wade into those waters (and walked back some of what was in the TNIV). Laying aside semantic blathering, the discussion boils down to whether or not one agrees with their decision.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are acting dense.

I clearly said that I disagreed with what that anonymous author had to say.

So don't give me that infantile "Even though it is true? bunkum.

Again, his main beef on the Niv 2011 as being at times more a commentary than a translation are true!

 

[rlvaughn]

I thought that I did, was What is the New International Version (NIV)?
At the Gotquestions web site!

Yeshua1, here is a bit of information on the Gotquestion.org web site.

GotQuestions.org is a ministry of dedicated and trained servants...We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational...Our writing staff includes pastors, youth pastors, missionaries, biblical counselors, Bible/Christian college students, seminary students, and lay students of God's Word. All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process.

So all the questions are ultimately the responsibility of S. Michael Houdmann, even though he does not write all the content. Just thought you might be interested.

 

[Rippon]

Straight from the Marprelate blog:

marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-new-covenant/

"There are several other places in the O.T. where chadash is used. The reader can check them out for themselves by making an internet search."

MM must be in league with the feminist agenda.

 

[Rippon]

Again, his main beef on the Niv 2011 as being at times more a commentary than a translation are true!

You and the unnamed author are dead wrong.

 

[Rippon]

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
"Thus Paul proves that it is to MAN, not to angels, that God has subjected the 'world to come.' In Hebrews 2:6-8
MAN is spoken of in general ('him'...'him'...'his'); then at Hebrews 2:9 first Jesus is introduced."

Pulpit Commentary
"We say to man, for the eighth psalm, from which the citation comes. evidentally refers to man generally, not primarily or distinctively to the Messiah. Nor does it appear to have been ranked by the Jews among the Messianic psalms."

Kenneth Wuest
"...the son of man spoken here is the human race."

NIV Commentary
"In Heb. 2:8 a few commentators see 'him' as referring in this place to Christ, to whom alone all things are rightly subjected. But grammatically there is no reason for this. The passage is describing the place of mankind in God's order, and we do not come to Christ's place until v. 9."

MacArthur Study Bible
"These quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general."

 

[Rippon]

Straight from the Marprelate blog:

marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-new-covenant/

You can find more examples of ugly and horrible English like the one below by following the link above.

"There are several other places in the O.T. where chadash is used. The reader can check them out for themselves by making an internet search."

 

[Rippon]

James White a wonderfully informative and edfying book eleven years ago called : Pulpit Crimes.

See some examples below in which he employes the singular they which is perfectly acceptable to everyone but the "particularly puristic pusillanimous pontificators."

"It dishonors God's Word and a wise elder would take such a person aside and explain to them that such activities are completely improper for the child of God." (p.97)

"If a person is not taught to live in this fashion then there is every reason to question whether they have actually encountered God's saving grace, or just a facsimile therof." (p.145)

 

[Yeshua1]

You and the unnamed author are dead wrong.

Even though the stated purpose behind the 2011 revision was to get rid of those over masculine terminology, to haveit also appeal to females, as they desired to make sure the scriptures could align with both males/females now?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, here is a bit of information on the Gotquestion.org web site.
So all the questions are ultimately the responsibility of S. Michael Houdmann, even though he does not write all the content. Just thought you might be interested.

Have youy ever used their site, and what do you think on their response to the 2011 Niv?

 

[Rippon]

Even though the stated purpose behind the 2011 revision was to get rid of those over masculine terminology, to haveit also appeal to females, as they desired to make sure the scriptures could align with both males/females now?

The above was all made possible by the Detroit Public School System.