Which was better translation, 1984/2011 Niv?

[Rippon]

That's it, Rippon! Play the man and not the ball. What a great example of a Christian you are!

And I thought I was being gentle with you. Some people...

 

[Rippon]

You have almost no idea what my view of the ESV is

How silly you are. You are unaware that there are archives in which you spell it out?

You have said :

"My preference for the ESV over the NIV is that it is Formal Equivalence." (5/25/2011)
"The NASB is good and the ESV is OK if you like the Critical Text." (9/12/2011)
"It is certainly one of the better translations." (12/17/2011)
"What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV?" (2/2/2017)

 

[Yeshua1]

What's the matter y1? Does the cat have your tongue?

I have asked the same series of questions in posts 23, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 30.

The questions appear to be easy, but you apparently think they are hard. But actually they would be difficult if you are dishonest.
If you became honest it would be a simple task.

Just three simple questions --give it an honest try with no evasion, no quibbling, no irrelevancies.

Did the revision have it right when it went so hard for gender translation now?

 

[Yeshua1]

The 2011 version does have several improvements over the 1984, but its gender-inclusive policy makes it unacceptable to me.
Two churches where I'm sometimes invited to preach have switched to the ESV.

If they would have just made those revisions and yet retain exactly the gender translation they had before in the 1984, would have been much better.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. But of course you're the guy who'd like to toss the CSB in the trash.


And you're okay with its inclusive language.

All versions have some inclusive language, but the question is is their warrant for just how far the 2011 Niv went?

 

[Rippon]

Did the revision have it right when it went so hard for gender translation now?

It did no such thing. You know it did not. By the way, there is no such thing as "gender translation" but I am supposed to translate your goofy posts.

 

[Rippon]

If they would have just made those revisions and yet retain exactly the gender translation they had before in the 1984, would have been much better.

Then it would have been less accurate to do so. The ESV, HCSB, CSB and NET all use much more inclusive language than the 84 edition of the NIV. But, since consistency is not a personal strength of yours you have studiously avoided the obvious.

 

[Rippon]

All versions have some inclusive language, but the question is is their warrant for just how far the 2011 Niv went?

When will you provide specifics of your own from the text of the 2011 NIV to back up your charges?

In the past I itemized 100 passages and noted various versions that used inclusive/ gender specific language.

The 84 NIV used it in 12% of the time.
ESV 41%
HCSB 68%
NET 88%.

I didn't factor in the CSB at that time because it didn't exist then. But I am sure it uses more than the NET translation --which puts it neck-to-neck with the 2011 NIV. That's because the 2011 NIV used inclusive language 100% in those 100 passages.

You never challenged the renderings of any of the various versions. That's because you shy away from specifics.

You wobble back and forth on the CSB-- sometimes condemning it for too much gender inclusive language --sometimes not.

 

[Yeshua1]

When will you provide specifics of your own from the text of the 2011 NIV to back up your charges?

In the past I itemized 100 passages and noted various versions used inclusive --or gender specific language.

The 84 NIV used it in 12% of the time.
ESV 41%
HCSB 68%
NET 88%.

I didn't factor in the CSB at that time because it didn't exist then. But I am sure it uses more than the NET translation --which puts it neck-to-neck with the 2011 NIV. That's because the 2011 NIV used inclusive language 100% in those 100 passages.

You never challenged the renderings of any of the various versions. That's because you shy away from specifics.

You wobble back and forth on the CSB-- sometimes condemning it for too much gender inclusive language --sometimes not.

Was there any real and legit reason why it would be 100 % inclusive for the Niv though? Why would it be needed to have it changed from "Blessed by the Man" to "Blessed be the person?"
As we know that Man, or Sons of God would alsi be including women also anyway.
And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?

 

[Rippon]

Was there any real and legit reason why it would be 100 % inclusive for the Niv though?

I have provided you ample opportunity time and time again and yet you have never stepped up to the plate.

And true to your past you have quoted an entire post of mine without dealing with my content. so why quote it in the first place?

And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to show that kind of ignorance as the above?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have provided you ample opportunity timed and time again and yet you have never stepped up to the plate.

And true to your past you have quoted an entire post of mine without dealing with my content. so why quote it in the first place?


Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to show that kind of ignorance as the above?

So you have no legit reason why so much inclusive language was included then?

 

[Rippon]

And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?

That's an utter fabrication --a complete falsehood. Why you say such entirely foolish things is beyond me. Don't you EVER verify things before posting?

The NIV has the wording son of man 606 times --the same number as the CSB.

[Personal attack edited.]

 

[Yeshua1]

That's an utter fabrication --a complete falsehood. Why you say such entirely foolish things is beyond me. Don't you EVER verify things before posting?

The NIV has the wording son of man 606 times --the same number as the CSB.

But you will ignore facts and go on your merry way repeating the same falsehood time and time again. The truth doesn't matter to you, does it?

Do they retain it in Psalms though?

 

[Rippon]

Do they retain it in Psalms though?

See this is where your true colors are flying. I point out an utter falsehood of yours and you do not say you are sorry. You make no acknowledgement whatsoever. It's not important to you. What you like to do is throw mud regardless of the facts.

Tell you what --you do your own homework. I'm not doing what should be your own legwork. You do this regularly on the BB and elsewhere. You ask questions that you should have checked out for yourself. Own up to it.

 

[Yeshua1]

See this is where your true colors are flying. I point out an utter falsehood of yours and you do not say you are sorry. You make no acknowledgement whatsoever. It's not important to you. What you like to do is throw mud regardless of the facts.

Tell you what --you do your own homework. I'm not doing what should be your own legwork. You do this regularly on the BB and elsewhere. You ask questions that you should have checked out for yourself. Own up to it.

I never said that the Niv did not have the Son of Mna, but they have taken out some clear references to jesus as being such out!

 

[Rippon]

I never said that the Niv did not have the Son of Mna, but they have taken out some clear references to jesus as being such out!

You are not telling the truth yet again. Why do you persist in making things up?

Let me refresh your memory even though you posted it a few hours ago. You said:

"And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?"

[Personal attack edited.]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How silly you are. You are unaware that there are archives in which you spell it out?

You have said :

"My preference for the ESV over the NIV is that it is Formal Equivalence." (5/25/2011)
"The NASB is good and the ESV is OK if you like the Critical Text." (9/12/2011)
"It is certainly one of the better translations." (12/17/2011)
"What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV?" (2/2/2017)

Apart from the last one, they are pretty ancient history.
Having become more acquainted with the ESV recently, I question whether it really is Formal Equivalence throughout. The NASB is far better if you favour accuracy.
It is somewhat better than the NIV, but that is really not saying a lot. NKJV or NASB is the way to go.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then it would have been less accurate to do so. The ESV, HCSB, CSB and NET all use much more inclusive language than the 84 edition of the NIV. But, since consistency is not a personal strength of yours you have studiously avoided the obvious.

What definition of 'inclusive language' are you using? Where are you drawing your statistics from?

 

[Rippon]

Apart from the last one, they are pretty ancient history.
Having become more acquainted with the ESV recently, I question whether it really is Formal Equivalence throughout. The NASB is far better if you favour accuracy.
It is somewhat better than the NIV, but that is really not saying a lot. NKJV or NASB is the way to go.

See, here is a post of yours that passes the test of decency.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are not telling the truth yet again. Why do you persist in making things up?

Let me refresh your memory even though you posted it a few hours ago. You said:

"And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?"

[Personal attack edited.]

The Son of Man renderings that used to apply towards that figure being Jesus Himself! Which even the 1984 Niv did affirm!