Yet Another HCSB Thread !

And your contention is they used the same translation method? Or is it that the NIV is slightly less literal than the HCSB? Or, based on your examples the TNIV is slightly more literal. I have no idea.

My position is the HCSB used a different translation method, optimal equivalence than the NIV. I have not studied the TNIV, but based on gender translation, I believe it is considered less literal than the NIV. I understand the NIV2011 moved closer to the TNIV on the gender issue, but I do not know if they went overboard like the TNIV. Edit: Of apparently 3600 or so modifications to accommodate gender neutral wording in Todays NIV (TNIV2005) the NIV2011 retains about 2700 problematic alterations.

If we looked at a chart where the most literal is on the left and paraphrases on the right, the HCSB would be on the NIV's left by considerable distance.

 

1 Timothy 2:12, most literal translation say a woman may not have or exercise authority over a man, but the NIV1984 and NIV2011 both say "assume authority." This introduces ambiguity (i.e. if a woman is appointed to an office, that would not violate this verse because she did not assume authority on her own volition. As I pointed out in another thread, by creating ambiguity, the translator opens the door to interpretations possibly driven by political correctness. HCSB says woman may not "have authority."

 

I am through with this thread:

Rippon says the HCSB and the NIV used essentially the same translation method. I say they did not.

Rippon says adding thousands of gender neutral alterations to the NIV1984 is no big deal, he liked the discredited and abandoned TNIV. I think the NIV2011 will go the way of the TNIV. Time will tell.

I think it is fair to say a false teacher, or someone pushing false doctrine would advocate for ambiguity in translation to provide exegetical opportunities to pour false doctrine into the text. Hence I would expect Calvinists to like ambiguity and reject clarity. Perhaps a Calvinist or too will differ from Rippon. Time will tell.

Rippon and I agree that the HCSB is a great translation and I believe it should be used to provide fresh insight into God's accurate and unambiguous word.

God Bless

 

Why must you always instigate by adding a snide comment about Calvinists? Amazing ...and then you add God Bless! :BangHead:

 

Yet another Calvinist leaving the question of ambiguity advocacy on the table, but feeling justified using the logical fallacy of against the Van argumentation. QED