He really does explain what many of us feel regarding the "updated" Niv here!
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations Compared to Ten Years Ago (2021 Update)
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Michael Marlow is not MM. The specific allegation that MM leveled at the NIV is that the Lord himself will be reduced to a "they" in the future. That is stupidly sinful of MM and you if you wish to engage in his foolhardiness. What I have insisted over and over again is to show me the texts of the NIV to prove any such bovine excrement. You have never done so. Which proves you don't know what you are talking about. You never offer specifics.He really does explain what many of us feel regarding the "updated" Niv here!
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
The NIV doesn't call any person of the old or New Testament a 'they.' Go on. Does it do it for the characters of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Daniel, David, Matthew Mark, Luke John etc. Of course not! And the translators would not stoop to doing that with regard to God. The translators do not ascribe to the notions of Mr. Silk. To do the kind of stuff you two sink to tells me you know nothing of the translators and their works, aside from the NIV.
The reason they did not do it is the outcrying against such nonsense. There is a version of the niv (rniv) perhaps that did go for gender neutral language such as plurals for singulars. I think only one textual critic prepared its text (complete tyranny). Had there not been an outcry we see what they would have done.
Outstanding link. Thank you. It should be read by everyone who cares about accuracy in translation.He really does explain what many of us feel regarding the "updated" Niv here!
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
There has never been a translation called the RNIV. There was the NIVI which was only released in the UK. It was deemed to be controversial. But I do remember that at least one pro-ESV guy praised its translation of the book of Romans. I am not sure how different it it was/is from the TNIV.The reason they did not do it is the outcrying against such nonsense. There is a version of the niv (rniv) perhaps that did go for gender neutral language such as plurals for singulars. I think only one textual critic prepared its text (complete tyranny). Had there not been an outcry we see what they would have done.
You consider that using plurals instead of traditional singulars means it's gender-neutral? Why?
Evil speculation is what you and the other two specialize in. I deal with the actual text. Don't engage with what you think will happen. Deal with the here and now text. Otherwise y-o-u are engaging in base gossip.
As I told Y-1, you apparently are completely oblivious of the stature of the translators.
By the way you was originally used as a plural pronoun for quite a while, before it also served as a singular pronoun for a person.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
M.M. is a hack. His closing sentence of that unworthy review is disgustingly false.Outstanding link. Thank you. It should be read by everyone who cares about accuracy in translation.
Last edited:
Any who goes against the Niv 2011 issues would be a "hack" to you it seems!Mr. Marlowe is a hack. His closing sentence of that unworthy review is disgustingly false.
he really did a nice summary of the major issues with that Translation! And all of those into Inclusive gendering the scriptures now!Outstanding link. Thank you. It should be read by everyone who cares about accuracy in translation.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You are as dense as a brick. You know very well where I stand and your memory cannot be that poor. So I have come to a very rational basis regarding your character.Any who goes against the Niv 2011 issues would be a "hack" to you it seems!
That edition was the one before the Noc 2011. done in 2005, and was even worse then the 2011 Niv revision in regards to making inclusive language decisions!The reason they did not do it is the outcrying against such nonsense. There is a version of the niv (rniv) perhaps that did go for gender neutral language such as plurals for singulars. I think only one textual critic prepared its text (complete tyranny). Had there not been an outcry we see what they would have done.
You seem to be very biased against any of those who have issues with Niv 2011, even legit concerns!You are as dense as a brick. You know very well where I stand and your memory cannot be that poor. So I have come to a very rational basis regarding your character.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
The majority of his review had nothing to do with the subject of inclusive language. But I doubt you even read his review despite promoting it at least a dozen times in the last decade.he really did a nice summary of the major issues with that Translation! And all of those into Inclusive gendering the scriptures now!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
No, that was not the TNIV., as I had already explained earlier.That edition was the one before the Noc 2011. done in 2005, and was even worse then the 2011 Niv revision in regards to making inclusive language decisions!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
See my post #89, as if you actually read anything.You seem to be very biased against any of those who have issues with Niv 2011, even legit concerns!
He is not a hack. All one has to do is look at his website. You will not find a better website on textual criticism. The same is said for English Bible history and Versions them selves. How can you fail to see that?M.M. is a hack. His closing sentence of that unworthy review is disgustingly false.
read it several times, and agreed with him!The majority of his review had nothing to do with the subject of inclusive language. But I doubt you even read his review despite promoting it at least a dozen times in the last decade.
what is weird here is that his charges against MM concerning his views regrading the website and his take on the Niv sound very similiar to those who ranted against the anti Kjvo website and works of Logos1560 here!He is not a hack. All one has to do is look at his website. You will not find a better website on textual criticism. The same is said for English Bible history and Versions them selves. How can you fail to see that?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
We all know that you don't read your own links' otherwise you would not have believed that the bulk of his review concerned inclusive language within the NIV.what is weird here is that his charges against MM concerning his views regrading the website
The man is probably dead now since his newest articles were dated almost a decade ago.