Yet another...

"Poppycock"? lol how intellectual.

"all of them are wrong" ?

"poppy cock" ?

Wow, what substance, what rebuttal "Rippon"... all for a blasphemous and self-evidently
improper translation work and just one more of a littenany of delutions in Modern English Translations as of late.

I am done with this thread with this single post... Later I will deal with the issue of Translations and Texts in more detail..

But, Linda has sufficiently answered you... now shoo... go away... I don't want to find you posting here again such self-evident betrayal of the Word of God!

If you choose to continue I would not want to be you.

In Sincerity and Truth,

Michael

 

Michael , LOL , you made me laugh heartily . You can't just shoosh me away .

The OP of this thread dealt with the LBI version -- which I agree is terrible .But lumping the TNIV in with it is egregious . You haven't an iota of an idea about reality . The censure of 2 Timothy 4:2-4 applies to the LBI , not the TNIV . You need to draw contrasts more effectually .

If you or anyone else here wants to condemn the TNIV as a "blasphemous and self-evidently improper translation" you would be in violation of the rules of the BB .

BTW , on Saturday I was visiting a library and came across "The New Testament Of The Inclusive Language Bible ." The publication year was 1994 . In the preface it said : Many women and a few good men have helped in the preparation of this version . "

But , strange to say , John 1:13 said : " They were not born of blood or of the will of man , but of God . " I guessed they missed that one . Of course in the Pastoral Epistles this version spoke of "spouses" instead of elders and deacons being men . The TNIV does no such tampering .

 

Good going, Rippon. And as one who did a master in NT Greek, I must say that the TNIV is a welcome addition to bible translation, even though many of my reformed brethren detest it.

 

I just purchased a TNIV today - I found a reasonally priced paperback copy at Kmart. The First thing I read in it was that our sins are forgiven because of Jesus Christ's blood shed at the cross for us. Then, to pray to our Father in Heaven. Jesus is still the Son of God and the son of man. To lump the NIV or TNIV in with a book that changes God into a woman or the Book of Morman and other cultic books is just plain ridiculous.

 

Although I would certainly not place the NIV/TNIV on my list of favorite Bible versions because of their dynamic equivalence translation styles and because of the TNIV's gender-neutral renderings, I would not go so far as to lump them into the same category as this "Judith" garbage. At least the NIV/TNIV convey the plan of salvation. The "Judith" garbage is "another gospel."

 

Hey , good to hear the good news TC and TCG . Though my handle is Rippon my initials are also TC . We must have a common bond .

Keith , the TNIV evidences more than the plan of salvation on its pages . I know for a change you did not mean to disrespect it this time . But I really hope you buy TNIV and see for yourself what this version is all about .

 

A common bond, indeed! Once you are able to get past the gender issue, the TNIV should be commended. It is a great blessing in many ways to the influx of translations.

In some places, the gender sensitivity is helpful, but in some places, like with all other such bibles, it has missed the point.

It is definitely an improvement on the NIV. It is more aware of the relevant conjunctions and connectives, participial rendings and such like. It found that to be very helpful.

A few days ago, I was looking at the TNIV's rendition of 2Tim 1:7, "For the Spirit God gave us... A good choice on pneuma being the "Holy Spirit" and not the "a spirit", giving the context and Paul's use of pneuma elsewhere.

And then I like what it does in John's Gospel, referring to "Jewish leaders", rather than just "Jews" in general.

I still think "sons" is the better rendition at Gal 4:6, 7, giving the Greco-Roman legal background of adoption. One of the weaknesses of gender-sensitivity.

 

Galatians 4:5,7: Because you are his sons , God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts , the Spirit who calls out , "Abba Father ." So you are no longer slaves , but God's children , he has made you also heirs . ( TNIV )

 

AS one who preaches from the TNIV, it is hilarlous to see the uninformed comments concerning what it actually says. The proper information is out there if one chooses to read it rather the the knee jerk reactionary nonsense that Dobson and his crowd pumped up before it was even published.

 

"So you are no longer a slave, but a son; now if a son, then you an heir through God" (a more faithful translation). The TNIV's "but God's children" is the Greek alla huios.

"Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God" (NASB).

"So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (ESV).

"So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir" (NIV).

 

Galatians 4:5 -- to redeem those under the law , that we might receive adoption to sonship . ( TNIV )

Galatians 4:5-7 -- in order to redeem those who were under the law , so that we might receive adoption as his children . Now because you are his children , God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts to cry out , "Abba ! Father !" So you are no longer a slave but a child , and if you are a child , then you are an heir through God . ( ISV )

 

But why didn't they continue with huios as son in the singular but switch to the plural tekna, children, which is not even in the text.

 

This is one of my pet peeves in any area.

No matter what you think about something, present it factually as it is, then approve or attack based upon the facts therein, instead of making stuff up to "prove" your point.

 

Here is some honest review of the TNIV, if anyone cares to read. Note it is 31 pages and cannot be condenced to a sound-bite but if you are willing to do a little work you might be just a bit surprised.

http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Blomberg.pdf#search="TNIV Untold Story"

 

Who is lumping what?

Let's be clear Rippon...

The Thread was not started by you....

You are the one that choose to defend ALL THINGS MODERN lol

by an inclusion of your defense of "TNIV" or "LINT" or whatever the latest fad...

when a self-evident citation of a specific modern version was made...

I make no bones about the failures of the "TNIV" because of the very reasons
already mentioned by OTHERs... delution of words, "dynamic equivalence" "improper textual base" add infinitum....

But, it is much wiser... to end all debate so I will....

As I pick up my KJV read and study from it... pray over it ... and now ... walk away..

And my only desired blessing:

May God give us wisdom to continue to prise what He has preserved and to treasure such translations as He not men would honor...

 

Let's be clear PFH , you are not so clear about the issues . And , though I did not start this thread , I think I have a right to contribute my thoughts here . DQ first brought up the TNIv and I offered some clarifying comments .

I do not go for all modern versions . I have even expressed fondness for Tyndale's early 16th century version . I had started a couple threads listing some verses which I thought were better rendered than some KJ wordings .

But this thread started off discussing the LBI version . Bro Tony nailed it in post #10 :" Everyone here whether KJVO or MV users can clearly see how bad this is and with one voice condemn it as such . "

 

The topic here is not the NIV or the TNIV. It is the blasphemous version referred to in the OP.

And, no poster has the right to "shoo" a poster away. That will be dealt with if it happens again.

Lets get back on topic or, well you regular posters know the rest .

 

I'm leaving this thread first

Before this thread gets "dealt with"

For the record, it was rhetorical.

 

If that is what it takes to abide by the rules, thanks for your decision.

I will remind everyone publicly here, accusing another poster of "self evident betrayal of the Word of God" is a clear violation of this forum's policy. I let it strand because Rippon did not take offence and APreacher4HIm is relatively new.

 

Back to the OP...

Not every deaf person has a limited vocabulary. However, for those who do, the EVD is a good Bible translation. It is also good for those whose knowledge of English is limited due to it being a second language

From http://www.battleoflife.org History of the English Bible:

StudyLight has an online version if anyone would like to take a look. Visit http://www.studylight.org for the online version.