The Version I Use

[Rippon]

it is MUCH more into gender translation than the Nasb/Nkjv , or even the HCSB versions, correct?

I have never heard of the term "gender translation" before. Do you mean that the NIV uses more inclusive language than the aforementioned ones? Yes. Also,the NIV uses slightly more than the NET Bible,and less than the NLT and TNIV.

The ESV and HCSB use much more inclusive language than the 84 NIV.

If the footnotes of the ESV related to inclusive language was put in the actual text then the ESV would rank just a mite less than the NIV in the use of inclusive language.

 

[Rippon]

From Dave Brunn's book : One Bible,Many Versions.

"The issue of gender in translation is not as cut and dried as has sometimes been portrayed. Often it comes down to little more than a judgment call on the part of the translators. Therefore, we need to be as objectoive as possible in approaching this issue. Otherwise, one might be tempted to gerrymander the boundaries of what is considered acceptable to include only the kinds of gender-[inclusive] substitutions that have long been commonplace in versions that identify themselves as literal." (p.179)

 

[Yeshua1]

From Dave Brunn's book : One Bible,Many Versions.

"The issue of gender in translation is not as cut and dried as has sometimes been portrayed. Often it comes down to little more than a judgment call on the part of the translators. Therefore, we need to be as objectoive as possible in approaching this issue. Otherwise, one might be tempted to gerrymander the boundaries of what is considered acceptable to include only the kinds of gender-[inclusive] substitutions that have long been commonplace in versions that identify themselves as literal." (p.179)

think the question really is not if there are ANY examples of gender rendering in translatiomns,but if there are an excessive, more that really necessary amount of those being done in a version?

Seems that many of these renderings are getting done due to 'dumbing down" of modern culture in regards to how to understand English grammar and use, and also an attempt to try to get perceived "male bias" out of the bible...

 

[Rippon]

think the question really is not if there are ANY examples of gender rendering in translatiomns,[sic]but if there are an excessive, more that really necessary amount of those being done in a version?

Gender rendering in translations? You are one confused fella.

Give specific examples. What is your excessive limit quotient?

With regard to the NIV the inclusive language used is gender-accurate. It is less than the TNIV and a little bit more than the NET Bible. Even the NLT emplys more.

You repeatedly speak in a scornful manner of the dumbing-down of Bible versions yet use very sloppy English (with a capital 'E'). I think you protest too much.

 

[Yeshua1]

Gender rendering in translations? You are one confused fella.

Give specific examples. What is your excessive limit quotient?

With regard to the NIV the inclusive language used is gender-accurate. It is less than the TNIV and a little bit more than the NET Bible. Even the NLT emplys more.

You repeatedly speak in a scornful manner of the dumbing-down of Bible versions yet use very sloppy English (with a capital 'E'). I think you protest too much.

Not saying the versions are "dumbed down", just the truth that much of the recent need to translate more "gender accurate" is due to the truth that many students have a severe misunderstanding of knowing that when the bible said men/sons, also includes females/daughters!

 

[Batt4Christ]

I'm not a fan of "single-choice" polls of this nature!

In the pastorate I just left, I always preached from the KJV, did personal study from the ESV, NASB, HCSB (occasionally), and the KJV.

Having just moved to a new church to lead - I have been preaching from the ESV. But my HCSB and KJV still find their way onto my desk (and I have those plus many more translations and language tools on my MacBook Pro).

So maybe this isn't such a simple question!

 

[Rippon]

many students have a severe misunderstanding of knowing that when the bible said men/sons, also includes females/daughters!

It is just a fact that the English language is in a state of change now. All languages are in flux but our language is at a particularly non-static stage shall we say?

It's not just students, but the generasl population. That's why the translators of the 2011 NIV used the Collins Report in their work. Millions of words and their usages through the last decade or so were researched.

Most people look at the word 'brother' that would not include sister. Most people see the word 'man' as not meaning people etc.

Again,Tyndale's principle --but Bible translations in the language of the masses. Put it in the vernacular --market-place English is called for.

 

[sdonahue1]

After having been using modern versions for quite a few years, I have started using the King James Version for study, devotional reading, and instruction. I love it. No gender bias or any of the other modern version problems. I just purchased a nice KJV Life App Bible, and find it to be the best. I wouldn't call myself KJVO, but King James Preferred. :thumbsup:

 

[beameup]

After having been using modern versions for quite a few years, I have started using the King James Version for study, devotional reading, and instruction. I love it. No gender bias or any of the other modern version problems. I just purchased a nice KJV Life App Bible, and find it to be the best. I wouldn't call myself KJVO, but King James Preferred. :thumbsup:

ditto :thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

I have started using the King James Version for study, devotional reading, and instruction. I love it. No gender bias

On the contrary,the KJV has a pronounced gender bias.

or any of the other modern version problems.

What are some of the "problems" areas,understandable language,a better textual basis? :laugh:

 

[Bluefalcon]

Yes, strange that by accident the best-selling Bible of the last 30 years was left off! I read many versions but enjoy the 1984 NIV the most I think.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, strange that by accident the best-selling Bible of the last 30 years was left off! I read many versions but enjoy the 1984 NIV the most I think.

Wonder how many still view it superior to both the 2005/11 revisions?

 

[Rippon]

Wonder how many still view it superior to both the 2005/11 revisions?

Only the uninformed.

 

[glazer1972]

The church I'm attending now uses the esv do I use the esv.


Nkjv is my favorite though.

 

[Rippon]

Well, as it stands right now (August 2,2013) the KJV occupies the lead with 31.51 percentage points. All other versions combined occupy 68.51%. How close do you think this unscientific survey reflects what the broader conservative American Christian market is as far as their favorite translation?

 

[JTornado1]

The ESV pew Bible at my church and the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version at home.:thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

The ESV pew Bible at my church and the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version at home.:thumbsup:

I also appreciate the ML Bible. In many ways it sounds more modern than the ESV ironically enough.

 

[Yeshua1]

Only the uninformed.

maybe those holding to a more conservative view of transaltion principles for the bible?

 

[Rippon]

maybe those holding to a more conservative view of transaltion [sic]principles for the bible?

If you are using the word conservative in a theological sense you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are aiming at the more inclusive language the 2011 uses compared with the 84 edition --it is not a matter of its being conservative or liberal.

Are you still uninformed about some of the translators of the NIV such as Doug Moo, Mark Strauss, Ronald Youngblood and Ken Barker to name a few? Are you willing to say that they do not hold to a conservative view of translation -- whatever that may mean? Those who have endorsed the 2011 NIV such as D.A.Carson, Daniel Wallace, Rod Decker, Daniel Block and Darrell Bock -- are you saying they don't have "conservative view of translation" -- whatever you mean by that?

You need to think things through.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you are using the word conservative in a theological sense you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are aiming at the more inclusive language the 2011 uses compared with the 84 edition --it is not a matter of its being conservative or liberal.

Are you still uninformed about some of the translators of the NIV such as Doug Moo, Mark Strauss, Ronald Youngblood and Ken Barker to name a few? Are you willing to say that they do not hold to a conservative view of translation -- whatever that may mean? Those who have endorsed the 2011 NIV such as D.A.Carson, Daniel Wallace, Rod Decker, Daniel Block and Darrell Bock -- are you saying they don't have "conservative view of translation" -- whatever you mean by that?

You need to think things through.

Conservative to me in this contex refers to one holding to more of a formal/literal equivalent model of bible translation!