Would still say the 1984 NIV superior to the revision, due to that gender overloading!
-
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!
Why is the New International Version Bible translation so popular? What are your thoughts on that?
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
It is a percieved readability thing. People are to lazy to do real bibke study and they think they can buy a translation the
Well except for having used an open homesexual for lingusitics.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Yes I prefer the 84
I believe that the general ed of the 1984 version stated that she had nothing to do with the final product though!
I do not care. What idiot thought it was a good idea to have here involved at all? It taints the whole thing. Its bad enough it is dynamic equivalent.
Compared though to the latest one, almost seems like a formal translation!
Sure, that is like saying that the guy who murdered one person looks pretty tame to the mass serial killer.
Someone who did not know that she was a lesbian. She may have just done her job. It wasn't until much later that it came to be known.
It should not.
That is the real issue. What really matters.
It doesn't matter if she just did her job. She is lost, has no connection with God, cannot make use of the HG to do her work. Living in perverted sin.
yes it should and apparently did.
Thanks for your opinion.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I would say it is a bit over the top to claim that it taints the whole thing.
Sure it does. It puts into question not only her work but the judgement of the people who put her there. Those who ignore it....well sad for them.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Can you point to a passage where it is not accurate and is a direct result of her influcence?
Dr. Barker, the editor, will not admit and is not forthcoming on those verses even when asked. He has downplayed her involvement and influence but she claims otherwise. We do not know the extent of her influence as her claims are in contradiction to Dr. Barker or anyone else.
Not knowing is a problem in and of itself. She claims she oversaw large passages of scripture and as a result of her counsel many passages were changed. This she said to Dr. Chambers. She also claims there was some reduction of passages dealing with homosexuality as a result of here counsel. She later claimed that the bible she grew up with was oppressive.
Knowing she was part of it is enough to dismsiss it. Not knowing exactly what passages she had influence over is enough to dismiss it. Her claim that the reduction of passages dealing with homosexuality as a result of her counsel is enough to dismiss it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Is her claim credible? Do we see any of the homosexuality passages watered down in the version?
It checked by a final review team, and ANY renderings favorable to gay and lesbian lifestyles did not make it in finished product!
No, we do not!
VIRGINIA RAMEY MOLLENKOTT: LITERARY CONSULTANT
Virginia was listed in all references as a literary consultant. She has also said herself that all she did was provide services as a stylistic consultant. She did not participate in any translation work. In fact, in one letter she wrote to Michael J. Penfold, she lamented the use of “homosexual” in the Old Testament because it was too anachronistic. A portion of the letter reads as follows:
I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilized in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. (Virginia Mollenkot)
Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?
Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?
Virginia was listed in all references as a literary consultant. She has also said herself that all she did was provide services as a stylistic consultant. She did not participate in any translation work. In fact, in one letter she wrote to Michael J. Penfold, she lamented the use of “homosexual” in the Old Testament because it was too anachronistic. A portion of the letter reads as follows:
I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilized in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. (Virginia Mollenkot)
Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?
Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Thank you for this! Very helpful!
alexander284
Well-Known Member
It's a shame they don't offer both. Then people would have a choice!
They would probably find out that a majority of pastors and churches would get the 1984 reordered instead of keeping 2011 Niv, and they had just too much time and money invested to allow that to happen!