Which revision Actually Changed version most Nasb/Niv/Esv?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    between those 3, which latest revision actually altered/changed it the most?
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that it matters much but my money's on the NIV.
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV's gone through several transitions hasn't it? I can't like the NIV, I've tried, but I don't like the read.
     
  4. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree... The other updates are for a word here and there, a bit of punctuation, a few marginal notes, etc., but the NIV wholesale changed hence the issues surrounding the new text. And for the invariable flap that is sure to follow these first couple of posts, I am not demeaning the NIV 2011, Just making critical observations of the sort that theologians often do. We examine, reflect, base inferences on Scripture, etc., all of which are legitimate expressions, and equally viable for the NIV, KJV, ESV, HCSB, NAS, etc.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the phrase as you put it so inelegantly: wholesale changed. It means affecting almost everything. And that is simply false altogether. The 2011 NIV reads the same as the 1984 edition for the majority of the text.

    Of course you demean the 2011 NIV. When you say it does away with critical gender distinctions. When you claim that the translators fiddled about with gender distinctions --you have engaged in slander.

    Don't flatter yourself. You have made no critical observations --you have passed along gossip-rag stuff.
     
  6. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    except to have inclusive language additions , any other reason why was revised?

    What was wrong with just keeping the 1984 as is?
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    Because no version should remain static. All translations need improvement for various reasons. There have been numerous changes for the better. The 84 NIV was becoming dated.

    Instead of asking all the questions you do, read the Preface yourself.

    This applies to all those countless threads you've started with questions that you could have easily found the answers to on the internet.

    You need to give your constant inquiry-mode a rest for a while.
     
  8. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why Brother Rippon... I was SURE that you would show up. :love2:

    You seem to have a loyalty akin to KJVO for the NIV 2011. Good enough translation, but I remain puzzled why all the fireworks everytime someone mentions it. HAS to be personal.
     
  9. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    but was it necessary to have the gender inclusive renderings brought into it, as a revision/update from the good 1984 version?

    Do you then view say NASB/NKJV as "inferior", as neither of their bible translator commitees decided to "hop aboard' the inclusive gender language renderings bus?
     
  10. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good version, still wonder WHY the 1984 HD to be revised, and still wonder why so much on this one version!
     
  11. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    The big deal is that there are a goodly number of noted and reputable biblical scholars who are saying exactly what I am saying concerning the NIV 2011 (or for that matter the TNIV its parent translation). This is not something that I've dreamed up just to give Rippon a hard time. There are several real concerns involving the translation.

    But, there are several concerns involving virtually every translation. So it goes. That's why we have marginal notes and why we work hard to grasp the original text in order to be able to deal with the nuances and issues in every translation that come about as a part of the choices made during the translation process.

    Question for you Brother Rippon... What are your facilities with the original languages. Can you do rudimentary translation and exegesis? Not looking to cut you down, just interested in your level of scholarship upon which you base much of what you say.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    You say that you are not demeaning it,yet you slander it. That is rank hypocrisy.

    Others have "mentioned" it. That's not the point Sherlock. I take issue when lies are spewed about it. It's one thing to object to certain passages for good reason --but I strenuously when falsehoods fly around by professing Christians. And I don't mean only BB members.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    Most are not New Testament scholars. Whereas the defenders of the NIV,who are not on the team have the credentials.

    Get specific. Name them. You failed to back up your slanderous charges before. Here is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate why you are justified in your contentions.


    None. And that doesn't negate one iota from the points I have made.

    My lack of scholarship has absolutely nothing to do with objecting to your crass characterizations of the 2011 NIV. I base what I say because it is true.
     
  14. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least you haev identifed yourself. And, yes, I would say that your lack of scholarship DOES play a role in this discussion. You seem to be unable to process theological criticism without seeing it as an attack. Your loss.

    As for the issues with the TNIV (which I believe you also supported) and the NIV 2011, they are well documented in any number of places. Do your own homework.

    Finally, get the difference between criticism and slander. You are accusing me of something that would get me jail time in a court of law. I doubt that my criticisms of certain aspects of the NIV 2011 rise to that level, especially when they are noted by so many others as well.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    I go by Rippon here.

    You have not offered a scintilla of support for your reckless claims. I have been waiting. You have not been forthcoming. What does it take for you to substantiate your charges?

    You have offered diddly squat. And nothing plus nothing leaves nothing as Billy Preston used to sing. Empty,reckless claims do not qualify as theological criticism.

    You have avoidance issues. Get to the point. Specify and document about the 2011 NIV tampering with gender distinctions. It's what you have said --back it up. Or,better yet,retract it.

    No,the word slander is appropriate. You have said intentionally false things about the 2011 NIV --and hence the translators. You have sought to damage the reputation of the translation and translators by doing so. That qualifies as slander.
     
  16. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    As you're well aware, I am no friend of the NIV, to put it mildly. It's a poor "translation" in my opinion and among others, and "its" infatuation with gender makes it even less likable.

    The more I see you slander, call names, and carry on about this NIVOnlyism you've created, which is in fact akin to the attitude and objective of KJVOnlyists, the less I see any impact this text is having on your life as far as your walk is concerned towards others.

    I've seen your many attemps to undermine other versions, all while holding up your NIV (again similar to a KJVOnlyist) yet, if one talks about your NIVOnly objective, you resort to name-calling. You need to grow. You also need to grow some thick skin. I don't care what translation you're using bud, it's not helping as I see this pugnacious attitude of yours towards others who disagree too often.

    If you can't handle others not jumping on your NIVOnlyism bandwagon, and have to resort to these tactics, why keep bringing it up?

    - Peace
     
    #16 preacher4truth, Dec 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2011
  17. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Learn to use your spacebar. You've also missed another mispelled word in glfredricks quote.

    You've also sought to damage the reputation of several other translations on your NIVO and gender campaign. This would then, according to your rules for others make your statements slanderous.

    NIVOnlyism. Which one is the correct NIV? :laugh:
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    Your back to your obsessive ways I see.

    Where have I slandered?

    You are spouting silly untruthful things again,as is your custom. Would it hurt to be truthful once in a while, especially since you pastor?

    There you go again prevaricating. Don't you have anything of truthful substance to bring to the table?

    Why do you? You haven't added anything rational or Scriptural with your nonsense post.

    Your closer rings so very hollow.
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    Post #17

    You go by the handle of preacher4truth. Why don't you try to live up to it? Why make infantile posts? Don't you have more important things to do? Why do you engage in such nonsense repeatedly?

    Do you have a conscience?
     
  20. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said: "Where have I slandered?" Uh? :laugh: :wavey:

    Please. You know where, put an end to your self-deception, OK? And no one but you is being untruthful, so stop your slander as if persons are lying. Thanks.

    You can't admit to your name-calling ways, and slander of other versions, let alone slander towards other persons. There is enough evidence of this on the BB, no need to pretend. As soon as I stated I am not a fan of the NIV, never addressing you personally, along you came with an attack on me, snide remarks and comments on my character and what I said. You've been noted as doing the same to others about your version and NIVO objective. It's ridiculous behavior.

    As I said, your version isn't helping you with your anger, tirades, and name-calling used on others who don't care much for your NIVO stance, nor for the NIV itself. These are works of the flesh. You've admitted to this anger, and it's anything but righteous. Put an end to your name-calling and slander of other versions, since you can't handle others not liking your version, nor your NIVO agenda. Several have called you on this.
     
    #20 preacher4truth, Dec 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...