-
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.
Which Bible Translation Should I use?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Just curious as to why its flamethrowers to be people just pointing out that MANY conservative christians had issues with the 2011 revision...
Flamethrowers are not just folks who think the 2011 NIV has some problems. By definition they are inflamatory. It was much worse with respect to the treatment that was meted out to the TNIV --this time it has been a bit muted;but nonetheless there are folks--you included, who stir things up. Instigators who have nary a clue and yet go on saying things that are untrue many times knowing they are wrong but insisting on continuing their mission.
Any wonder why they went to Esv in droves, or else stayed with 1984 niv?
It's because of folks like Wayne Grudem,Leland Ryken and the disgraceful Bayly brothers. People look up to their heroes,believe what they say;have a lemming-like bent and away they go.
It's because of folks like Wayne Grudem,Leland Ryken and the disgraceful Bayly brothers. People look up to their heroes,believe what they say;have a lemming-like bent and away they go.
Never heard of any of those folks. My ideas come from the verses I see posted. I copy them and then compare them with the KJV, old NIV and ESV. So far the new NIV is not standing up very well.
Never heard of any of those folks. My ideas come from the verses I see posted. I copy them and then compare them with the KJV, old NIV and ESV. So far the new NIV is not standing up very well.
What veres you posted. I looked in this thread and couldn't locate them.
You know I don't see anyone (well other than maybe KJVO folks) being anti NIV.
Anti the current changed version perhaps but not against the NIV as a whole.
exactly! many of us herre actually kept using the 1984 niv, just finding the Niv 2011 "hard to stomach!"
exactly! many of us herre actually kept using the 1984 niv, just finding the Niv 2011 "hard to stomach!"
You need to read discerningly,mediate,pray and then type.
You need to read discerningly,mediate,pray and then type.
trying to over think too fast a problem!
Mind faster then fingers!
Most in my congregation have switched. One it's what I use and they have actually said without any prompting, that they like having brothers and sisters in the text. I think your perception that most rejected the 2011 is way off base. In fact the sales figures back that up. Lots of heat not much light.
Most in my congregation have switched. One it's what I use and they have actually said without any prompting, that they like having brothers and sisters in the text. I think your perception that most rejected the 2011 is way off base. In fact the sales figures back that up. Lots of heat not much light.
again, my comment was that those holding to it being inferior to the 1984 edition were of conservative churches, and think among them, the Esv/KJV/NKJV/NASB will continue to be bible of choice!
Flamethrowers are not just folks who think the 2011 NIV has some problems. By definition they are inflamatory. It was much worse with respect to the treatment that was meted out to the TNIV --this time it has been a bit muted;but nonetheless there are folks--you included, who stir things up. Instigators who have nary a clue and yet go on saying things that are untrue many times knowing they are wrong but insisting on continuing their mission.
It's because of folks like Wayne Grudem,Leland Ryken and the disgraceful Bayly brothers. People look up to their heroes,believe what they say;have a lemming-like bent and away they go.
Are they good scholars, and know what they are talking about though, even IF they happen to disagree with you?
Are ALL who are against the Niv 2011 lemmings, ignorant, slanderers, or what?
Are they good scholars, and know what they are talking about though, even IF they happen to disagree with you?
Only Wayne Grudem can pass for a scholar of sorts. Ryken doesn't know the original languages any more than I do. The Bayly bros? Come on!
Are ALL who are against the Niv 2011 lemmings, ignorant, slanderers, or what?
Most are lemmings. And they posses some of the other less virtuous characteristics in varying degrees.
Only Wayne Grudem can pass for a scholar of sorts. Ryken doesn't know the original languages any more than I do. The Bayly bros? Come on!
Most are lemmings. And they posses some of the other less virtuous characteristics in varying degrees.
Leland Ryken, is a professor of English at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. [1] He has contributed a number of works to the study of classic literature from the Christian perspective,[2] including editing the comprehensive volume on Christian writing on literature The Christian Imagination. He was the literary stylist for the English Standard Version of the Bible, published by Crossway Bibles in 2001. He is the author of How to Read the Bible as Literature and Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, as well as co-editor of Ryken's Bible Handbook and the ESV Literary Study Bible (with his son, Philip Ryken).[3] He was the literary content contributor to the ESV Study Bible,[4] released in 2008.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he seems to be a bit more than a "hack", wouldn't you say?
And are you saying ANY against the Niv 2011 cannot be any real scholars, must be hacks/ignorant/uninformed etc?
The Bayle brothers seem to be Presbyterian Church in America pastors , so assuming they received their training/education from a reputable seminary, why would they also be 'hacks?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Leland Ryken, is a professor of English at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. [1] He has contributed a number of works to the study of classic literature from the Christian perspective,[2] including editing the comprehensive volume on Christian writing on literature The Christian Imagination. He was the literary stylist for the English Standard Version of the Bible, published by Crossway Bibles in 2001. He is the author of How to Read the Bible as Literature and Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, as well as co-editor of Ryken's Bible Handbook and the ESV Literary Study Bible (with his son, Philip Ryken).[3] He was the literary content contributor to the ESV Study Bible,[4] released in 2008.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he seems to be a bit more than a "hack", wouldn't you say?
He doesn't know squat about Bible translations. And for being a literary consultant for the ESV. The version just doesn't evidence proper English for the most part.
And are you saying ANY against the Niv 2011 cannot be any real scholars, must be hacks/ignorant/uninformed etc?
No,I didn't say that,nor do I think that. E.Ray Clendenen of the HCSB is very even-handed about the 2011 NIV when he of course,prefers the HCSB.
The Bayle brothers seem to be Presbyterian Church in America pastors , so assuming they received their training/education from a reputable seminary, why would they also be 'hacks?"
They are a disgraceful pair. You obviously know nothing about them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Douglas J.Moo,who heads up that translation team has some things to say on the gender issue.
"Our decisions about gender were part and parcel of our single overall agenda --to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one: (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included)or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
I'd like a response to this from the Y-man.
From the book and Doug Moo's section:"The NIV...seeks to translate into 'natural'modern English. To be more specific,we want to use English that will be widely understood by people in Africa and India as well as people in North America,by believers and unbelievers,by people with Ph.D.s and those with only a high school education." (p.86)
"'These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from some personal experience;they are based on solid data...the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.[the largest data bank of English usage in the world;more than 4.4 billion words]Our decisions were driven by this research,and our concern was always fidelity to what the original texts were saying. When those texts indicate an exclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term;where they indicated an inclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (87,88)
Y-man,please respond to the above.
Y-man,please respond to the above.
they were revisiing the Niv to be able to be read and understand by a generation affected by the "dumbing down" process, correct?
they were revisiing the Niv to be able to be read and understand by a generation affected by the "dumbing down" process, correct?
Is that your substantive response to the Doug Moo quotes? Your immaturity is wearing thin. He specificially addressed your lies. And all you can say is that the NIV capitulated to a dumbing-down process? Have you ever looked at your own posts?
You will have to do a whole lot better. I am asking you to be more forthcoming. That means be honest,truthful,no skirting the central issues. Are you up to it? Remember;no mendacity!
Is that your substantive response to the Doug Moo quotes? Your immaturity is wearing thin. He specificially addressed your lies. And all you can say is that the NIV capitulated to a dumbing-down process? Have you ever looked at your own posts?
You will have to do a whole lot better. I am asking you to be more forthcoming. That means be honest,truthful,no skirting the central issues. Are you up to it? Remember;no mendacity!
again, the Niv team in their revision "hopped" on the TNIV 2005, with its concession to modern views of evangelical feminism regarding "male bias" from the culture of the times coloring just how the texts have been transalted! they wanted to 'remidy/correct" that situation, but in their desire to improve the version, actually made it worse!
And do you honestly think that ONLY reasons Christians in conservative circles have been against it is die to promoting the Esv, or else being unlearned, no scholarship?