Anglo-Saxon word order?
-
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!
Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations Compared to Ten Years Ago (2021 Update)
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
Its my spiritual gift!
That was why I put 'new' in inverted commas.
I was never crazy about the 'old' NIV. The 'new' one has one or two improvements in it, but its gender-neutral nature is a trojan horse within the Bible-believing camp.
and sad to say, the Nas 2020 seems to be following it!
The 1995 NASB is a fine translation. I've not yet read the new version so it would be wrong to pass judgement. But you are right; the NASB is almost unknown in Britain, precisely because it is the AMERICAN Standard. And that's a shame.I know you’re British, but the New AMERICAN Standard Bible would put a spring in your step.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
The word 'it's' needs to be put in its contractual form in that sentence of yours.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
There is no "sad to say." The CSB uses more inclusive language than the 2020 NASB.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You are buying into the paranoia horse mentality.
The truth is not paranoia.
Does God get a say in preferred pronoun?
The one thing that could turn me into a KJV-onlyist is if all the other Bibles go Gender Neutral.
Both use too much!
Thankfully, we still have the Nkjv, 1977/1995 Nas, and the Legacy bible to avoid that from happening
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
What you and Van regard as truth is not the same as actual truth.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Steely quotes Silk who advocates the use of 'they' for God. What in the world does that have to do with the NIV, CSB or the NLT?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
One thing (among many) that you have failed to consider is that the NIV translators do not use the term 'gender-neutral' to describe their work. You will look in vain in the preface of the NIV for example. Now the terms 'inclusive language' or 'gender accurate' or 'gender specific' are used but not gender-neutral. Why? Because the NIV does not engage in that.
What people say and what they do are not always the same thing.
You are entitled to be a 'useful idiot' on behalf of the militant feminists and assorted gender fascists if you want.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Indeed that is correct. You have to prove from the text of the NIV, CSB or the NLT that any feminist agenda is in play. You can spew hatred and lies, but until you document that your wild accusations are valid --I'd advise you to close your mouth and still your ever-ready keystrokes.
Steely and Silk have nothing to do with the translations I mentioned above. For some devious purpose you wish to associate Silk's theology and appropriate it in condemning Bible versions that do not do that junk. Rise above the filth MM.
there is a type of "Evangelical Feminism" coming into play, as some water to water down Gender role distinctives in the scriptures!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I have told you repeatedly for more than a dozen years --document your assertions by showing the texts of Bible versions. You have never done so. That demonstrates that you are relying on fiction vs fact. No Christian should repeat false, evil charges about Bible translations that cannot be backed up by citation from the text of said Bible versions.
You really don't get it, do you?
Read up on Antonio Gramsci and the 'Long march through the Institutions.' And any fool should realize that if one theologian wants to call God 'they' today, it will become the norm tomorrow. I may be mistaken but I seem to recall writing just a couple of years ago that the feminists would not be happy until we were all calling God 'they.' Well, here you are; the first step of this particular long march has been taken.
But the problem is that so many Christians are Lenin's 'useful idiots.' They are terrified of the world. The world wants us to write 'brothers and sisters' where the word of God says 'brothers,' and the U.I.s say OK; will that satisfy you? Of course it won't. Next they want plurals where the word of God puts singulars. Oh dear! Maybe God got it wrong? Maybe if we call a singular person 'they' the Gender fascists will be happy and leave us alone? No chance!
So what's next? Next may well be changing 'Father God' into Parent God.' that won't be long in coming. How long before the Virgin Mary is described as a 'person with a cervix'? That may take a bit longer, but the U.I.s won't mind because they think it will keep the world happy. How about removing one or two texts that suggest that God is somewhat less than happy with same-sex relationships? Surely Rippon Redeaux wouldn't do that!!? Well, the world wants it, and anyway, he's added words to the Divine text of Scripture, he's changed singulars into plurals; how can he be consistent and refuse it?. Anyway, what's a few words removed here and there?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You and Y-1 are two peas in the same pod. Let this sink in MM --you need to stop your sinful speculations and prove your contemptible charges by citing the text of Bible versions. Since you cannot, then tais-toi!