Featured The NIV 2011 edition

Americas Finest! At least was schooled well enough to know that too much inclusive language can really hurt a translation!

 

With help from fellow Baptists who decided to NOT use the 2011 revision!

 

Yes, I have used their site a number of times -- not because I search it, but because my Google Search hits on it. I haven't read every word of the 2011 NIV response, so I'll not say much; but with a glance through it, it seems to be reasonable. They appear to be supporters of the 1984 NIV over the 2011, since their About GotQuestions.org page has this:

 

They would be supporting that version over the latest edition, and they do see the 2011 as OK, but not as good!

 

The above named website is full of errors. We don't know the gender of the person who wrote the articles regarding translations.

It could very well have been a dozen people. But let's say it was one person --a man. This unknown guy is a hypocrite.

Allow me to demonstrate.Regarding the NET Bible no mention was made about gender-inclusive language, although it uses just a bit less than the NIV.

No mention was made of the NLT's gender-inclusive language although it uses considerably more than the NIV.

No mention was made about the extent of gender-inclusive language in the CEB.

The mystery man said, :"The gender-inclusiveness of the REB is troubling." What!? It is about as mild as it gets.

He mentions nothing about the inclusive language in the HCSB or GW translation.

All of the above is tremenously inconsistent, if not, out and out lying.

He says :"The NLT follows a combination of formal equivalence (word-for-word) and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) methods of translation." One would be led to believe that the NLT is further left on those charts than the NIV --which, of couse, is completely false.

He says of the NLT :"It is written in quality and contemporary English." Of course that sentence is itself a poor specimen of English.

Regarding the NRSV :"Also, many consider the NRSV to not be as free-flowing and natural sounding as it could be." Really?! And yet he has no issue with the cumbersome wording of the ESV?!

As all of you know, the NRSV has more inclusive language than the NIV. All he says is that it "gender-inclusive in some of its renderings." Ha, ha. But he says :"Overall, the New Revised Standard Version is a good English Bible translation." I do not disagree with that at all. But if he professes to have profound problems with the NIV, how could he then extoll the NRSV? It just doesn't make any sense.

He says :"The 2011 NIV alters key verses that define the roles of women." That is absolute bunk. The translation does nothing of the kind.

To top things off : throughout his evaluations of dozens of translations he has as a recommended Resource: How To Choose A Translation For all Its Worth by Fee and Strauss. But if he had actually read and absorbed the contents of the book all of his reviews reflect no knowledge of the contents of that resource. The nameless author contradicts himself constantly.

That website is a waste of space and filled with errors.

 

Think that many would agree with him though as regards to how the 2011 niv went overboard in inclusive renderings into English!

 

Personal opinions about this website notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that they must be tech savvy and know how to get hits with search engines. Almost every time I formulate for a Google search a biblical question like, what does the Bible say about something, this site usually shows up very close to the top of the list in hits.

I'm not very tech savvy, so not sure how that works.

 

True to form, you quote a post, this time a long one, yet address nothing of its content. Keep up the bad work Y-1.

 

Just stating that many of us have a real problem with just how much much inclusive language was in the new Niv!

 

You're as thick as a wall.

Deal with my post number 105, Mr. Lackofspecifics.

 

his basic points concerning the problems with inclusive language is well documented and agreed upon by several with Baptist circles though!

 

The guy is a hypocrite as I demonstrated in post 105. Take the time to actually read and comprehend.

 

I have my brother, its just your NIVO position is allowing you to always disregard valid Niv criticisms!

 

Do you acknowledge his hypocrisy? If not, then you have not read my post detailing his hypocrisy.

Your foolish NIVO designation is noted. And of course it has been contradicted by many threads of mine in which I have defended and shown my appreciation for a wide variety of English translations.

Try to have some integrity Y-1.

 

I will have to agree there....Rippon is NIV-preffered, but is not ONLY. While is as took a few shots at the ESV, he has defended it on a few occasions as well.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

So Rippon's claim is the article is unfair in regards to its evaluation of the NIV. If you read their review of the NLT, it seems the sight does lavish some praise on that transaltion that does use more inclusive language than the NIV. So it seems Fill in is correct that the site is inconsistent. Anybody who objects to the inclusive language of the NIV, must object to the NLT.

Also the review states ......
"Further, the 2011 NIV alters key verses that define the roles of women (e.g., I Timothy 2:12 and Nahum 3:13)" Rippon claims this to be false. The website seems to favor the ESV, since the hyperlinks in the article open ESV verses. So, let's compare the supposed altered NIV verse to the "correct" ESV reading.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet ESV

And the altered NIV ..
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. NIV2011.

IT appears the claim agaisnt the NIV is false here. It does not vary in meaning from the ESV. It appears Rippon is correct again in his judgement on the article.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I was "tongue in cheek:, as know that he is Niv preferred, but still seems blind top some of its known faults!

 

The Niv 2011 does though seem to give more leeway to the idea that women are allowed to teach and pastor, and it does seem to try to water down what it views as being "over masculation" of the bible...

 

In the verse the article claims is altered?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

There seems to be some difference, but I would agree that they should have been more consistent o regard the NLT as having same problems with inclusive language as Niv does!