Featured Cev?

The above is a complete falsehood. You are layering in your lies. If you will not acknowlege your lies then just fade away. As a Christian you should tell the truth. Why do you persist in your same old ways when you are in the wrong?

 

Nothing that I have posted were lies, as they can be documented!..

Did you rread the listed materials?

 

Now that's another flat-out falsehood.

In addition to the above quote of yours,one of the examples of your lack of veracity is that the 2011 NIV has diluted the role distinctions between the sexes. The other one is that the TNIV was produced to address the concerns made by Evangelical Feminists. Both are lies for which you have not made any direct comment on since you posted them. You shy away from truth-telling. You are not being a good example of following the biblical injunction of not lying. You need to come clean and admit you were not telling the truth or produce evidence. Your pattern is not a good one.

 

www.christianpost.com/news/report-75-percent-of-tniv...niv-bible-501
Report: 75 Percent of TNIV Gender-Related Problems in Updated NIV Bible

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/r...-updated-niv-bible-50191/#V0kOgSfC81UXcXJw.99
http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the

www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35458
TNIV debate renewed in critique of new NIV
Posted on Jun 3, 2011 | by Michael Foust


guess all critics are either having agenda, or just don't understand the bible correctly, right?

 

you must have a problem seeing thru Niv tinted glasses my brother!

Those various sources document that many have had trouble with the Niv revision in 2011, and that it did seem to take a slant towards making the Bible seem to be more 'acceptable' to Chrsitian feminists who thought it seems pro male too much before!

so why cannot you see that?

again, both sides clearly given, pro and con to revision due to gender language, why deny that?

 

At least in the above it was acknowledged by a critic of the NIV that the newest NIV "includes many improvements from the TNIV."

 

i have NEVER said that it was abd version, just not needed, as its gender language was not needed, as the 1984 edition did fine!

 

I guess you don't know that the ESV has a lot more inclusive language than the 84 NIV.

 

that is why the 1984 Niv would be preferred to use for study then the 2011 edition!

 

The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy...

by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem.

The book came out in 2000,before the TNIV. I don't agree with much of it. However it contains one chaper called 'Accetable Changes" which I am comfortable with for the most part.

Here's a sample:

"But the phrase 'a man,' like the word 'men,' has shifted in meaning over time. Whereas formerly it could be understood as including women,it tends today to be understood as designating male human beings exclusively." (p.96)

 

Here's another extract from their book;

"We have never argued for..a general principle that 'formal equivalents' are always a more accurate method of translating." (77)

Hmmm...

 

key phrasing here are "general, not always" implies that there are indeed times where it would be!

 

Yeah,so? What does that prove? Even the more functionally-equivalent has some formally-equivalent renderings though generally its principle is to go the dymamic-equivalency route because it would be more accurate. I didn't know that the term general would be so foreign to your understanding.

 

what part did you NOT agree with, and are those 2 authors 'experts' in what they are describing or not?

 

Why wouldn't adhering as close as possible to theconstruction, way it was originally written down, be seen as making it ;less accurate?"

Wouldn't it be less easy to read and understand perhaps, but give us more of what it actually had said though?

 

If you just go to the archives and do a search of Grudem you will find plenty of posts in which I mention him.

Yes,they are "experts" of sorts.

 

Still waiting for the Y-man to acknowlege that he has lied,or to produce evidence that supports both for his above referenced assertions.

 

Already have!

Let's just agree to disgree, as you see the Niv same way others here do the Kjv!

 

No,you lie and avoid as best as you can. Straight-out come clean. You are not being a good testimony for the Lord by lying and then trying to escape from your lies.

I gave your two specifics. They are very clear. Address them just as clearly.