Featured LCMS Theology Commission

If improvements can be made why not incorporate the improvements? Things don't stand still. The ESV has even made some modest improvements to its text since the original publication in 2001.

 

In my opinion the NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase. A gender neutral or feminized version can only make it worse. The Missouri Synod is to be commended!

 

Since EVEN the KJV was revised several times.....

 

That's a totally whacked opinion.

You need to buy a clue.

 

Is this better?

The NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase.

It is not a mystery!

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Would say that the Niv 2011 would be in the same ballpark as say the HCSB, and that it is good to use for bible studies, but would still say also use a more formal/literal version to compliment it such as Nasb/Nkjv!

 

In my opinion, regardless of Rippon's extremist reaction, neither constitute what I consider a Bible! And I thought I had gotten snotty remarks from dispensationalists and freewillers on the Theology Forum. But Rippon always rises to the occasion.

 

what specific reasons do you use to deny them as being viable translations of the Bible?

 

You are blind. Denying that the NIV is a Bible is utterly contemptible. Talk about extremism!

And I just noticed that you deny the HCSB is not a Bible. Man,you are out on a broken limb.

 

Rippon, you have a serious problem.:laugh: You apparently think you are the "grand poo-pa" of the validity of translation of Scripture. You are not.:laugh: Furthermore, you always resort to personal attacks. Really strange.:flower: I have noticed this in the past!

 

Just curious as to what your educational basis would be to critique those versions?

 

You make the outrageous claim that both the NIV and HCSB are not Bibles with the wave of your pontiff's hand. Yet you demean me for maintaining the very reasonable position that they certainly are Bible translations. You have apparently no idea how far out and nonsensical (in addition to being dishonoring to the Lord) your "opinion" is.

 

I would say on par with you and Rippon!

 

I am not demeaning you at all Rippon. I just point out that you get all "hyper" when someone expresses a negative opinion of the NIV.

The Southern Baptists had the opportunity to produce a translation on par with the NASB or the ESV. They produced the HCSB.:tear::tear:

 

Wake up man! You don't merely express negative views of the NIV and HCSB...you say they aren't even Bibles. That is many steps away from merely being negative on your part OR.

Most of the translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible are not even Southern Baptists.

 

The wording of "on par with" needs to be fleshed out. The HCSB is neith the NASBU nor the ESV. But it certainly stands among them as a very fine Bible translation.

 

Then start "fleshing".

Big difference between you and me Rippon. You get all hyper when I express my opinion about the NIV. Frankly I don't care what you think about any version! If you like the HCSB then well and good. You happy makes me happy!

 

Yes, the Southern Baptist "publishing arm" did change the direction of their translation project.

Rippon wrote:

Lifeway chose the translation team, thus they were under SBC supervision. Rather than refuting Old Regular's opinion, your post reinforced it. The SBC could have produced a better Bible, IMO.

 

Thanks for the info. I posted the following on a thread with my name but thought I would throw it in here.