isn't The original 1984 NIV Considered Superior To Tniv/2011?

Define "superior."

Receptor language is always changing, and our fine-tuned understanding of source language is changing, as well as the science of textual criticism. So these will necessitate judicious revisions to versions from time to time. Plus, sometimes translations just need an overhaul. There were some very bad translational choices in the '84 just as there were good ones. I for one am glad that some of the bad ones got thrown overboard in the TNIV and now the '11 NIV. Some good ones also got tossed out.

So the short answer to your question is "It depends on who you ask." The translators said "no," so they released a revision, much the same as the NASB translators have done, and in a much smaller extent, the translators of the ESV.

And, so did those of the KJV.

 

Well, it begs the question: is using gender neutral (which may be a misnomer as there is gender specificity when required in the NIV, TNIV, etc.) language not being sensitive to language nuances, particularly in the receptor language?

 

No, not in general. What a ridiculous question.

Uh...gender neutrality is fine, as long as it remains true to the text. Sacred pronouns are not changed. When the text means "men" or "women" those are used. When it means "all people," or "all believers," those are used.

Weirdness.

 

Administrative note.

Please remember that rules of the Baptist Board require grace to be shown to other posters. Thanks.

 

Since I'm the only other one here, I assume you're talking to me.

There are a number of other posters here who routinely call others hateful, spiteful names and are still allowed to be here.

All I did was talk about a concept, an idea. The reason the TNIV and the 2011 NIV have been so maligned is not as much for any textual, theological, exegetical concept as much as politics.

All we have to do is check the record.

 

That is completely understandable.

___________________________________


The moderator's note was regarding present circumstances. Other circumstances have been dealt with and will be in the future.

 

I cannot abide inclusive language. I purchased a 2011 NIV, hoping for the best, and took it back. So, I ordered a 1984 from CBS, and fortunately for me, they had some 1984s available in the style I wanted. I would rather deal with the poor translations in the 1984( 'capstone', 'sinful nature' and others)which I can correct with a ballpoint pen, than a whole bookful of inclusive language.

 

So are you okay with the so-called inclusive language of the NLTse,NET Bible,ESV and HCSB?

 

Not to mention the KJV in a few places.

 

I for one prefer a gender accurate translation.

That means if it says something to males, use a male term in english. BUT if it is addressing both genders, for crying out loud just say so.

Hard as it might be for some to understand, Christians can be female.

And not all speak english.

We accept gender accuracy around the globe--or maybe I should just say accuracy.

Why are we so hog tied defending the old english practice of the male terminology being used for generic?

I have an idea--let's trash gender accuracy and spend several hundred years using the female for the generic!

No? Guys might not like using a Bible that when refering to all humanity calls them women?

Then if they are going to treat others as they want to be treated, better get on board with accuracy.

 

Actually, not. I have pretty much returned to the KJV, and the NASB77