Which was better translation, 1984/2011 Niv?

[Rippon]

Apart from the last one, they are pretty ancient history.

You had said that I had almost no idea what your view of the ESV is. I proved you wrong from your own words.

It's the same thing I have had to do with y1 for 8 years. He claims absurds thing regarding the NIV. I quote him --show him he is completely off his rocker --show proof. And what do you know? He ignores the information and off he goes making other outrageous claims. Then he makes a circuit and claims the same thing again in time.

 

[Rippon]

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

A grand total of two references in the 2011 NIV don't have son of man --in Ps. 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6.

I have spent countless posts spelling it out for you as to why that term isn't used in those passages.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You had said that I had almost no idea what your view of the ESV is. I proved you wrong from your own words.

It's the same thing I have had to do with y1 for 8 years. He claims absurds thing regarding the NIV. I quote him --show him he is completely off his rocker --show proof. And what do you know? He ignores the information and off he goes making other outrageous claims. Then he makes a circuit and claims the same thing again in time.

I was right. You didn't have any idea what my view on the NIV 2011 is, because I have modified it over the last 7 years.
You, on the other hand, seem strangely reluctant to answer my post #58.
As for Y1, don't complain to me about him. If your 'proof' was convincing, and if you presented it in a winsome manner, you would have persuaded him, no doubt.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A grand total of two references in the 2011 NIV don't have son of man --in Ps. 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6.

Two is two too many.

 

[Rippon]

I was right. You didn't have any idea what my view on the NIV 2011 is, because I have modified it over the last 7 years.

Keep up. You have to pay better attention. I was referencing your post #38 where you had said that I had almost no idea what your view of the ESV is.

As for Y1, don't complain to me about him.

But you are the defender of his mendacity.

If your 'proof' was convincing, you would have persuaded him, no doubt.

He has a certain thickness in which truth-telling does not move him.

 

[Rippon]

Two is two too many.

In your mistaken view. But I have demonstrated otherwise numerous times on the BB.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Keep up. You have to pay better attention. I was referencing your post #38 where you had said that I had almost no idea what your view of the ESV is.

I know.

But you are the defender of his mendacity.

Once again you are breaking BB rules.

He has a certain thickness in which truth-telling does not move him.

He may think this applies to you, and I couldn't fault him if he did.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In your mistaken view. But I have demonstrated otherwise numerous times on the BB.

In your mistaken view.

 

[Rippon]

I know.

You're bad.

 

[Rippon]

Some samples of MM's language regarding the NIV follow:

"How dare these translations keep their readers from finding the Saviour to satisfy a bunch of feminists who don't believe in Him anyway?" (12/18/2017)

I had also quoted from the NET, NLT, CEB and NRSV.

"The NIV has obscured it for no better reason than to placate a bunch of feminists..." (5/2/2017)

Way to go in besmirching the NIV.

"Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists..." (4/18/2017)

You think like a two year old.

"Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your feet." (2/3/2017)

The above is particularly revolting and of course completely untrue. Just throw the mud, and kick back must be your motto.

"Our Lord's words are being mucked about with [sic] in order to satisfy a bunch of feminists...." (12/31/2017)

Typical MM junk above.

"Unless of course one is a raging feminist and cannot accept the age-old English usage of 'man' to cover both male and female."

Do you get the picture? It's your favorite false tagline.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some samples of MM's language regarding the NIV follow:

"How dare these translations keep their readers from finding the Saviour to satisfy a bunch of feminists who don't believe in Him anyway?" (12/18/2017)

I had also quoted from the NET, NLT, CEB and NRSV.

"The NIV has obscured it for no better reason than to placate a bunch of feminists..." (5/2/2017)

Way to go in besmirching the NIV.

"Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists..." (4/18/2017)

You think like a two year old.

"Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your feet." (2/3/2017)

The above is particularly revolting and of course completely untrue. Just throw the mud, and kick back must be your motto.

"Our Lord's words are being mucked about with [sic] in order to satisfy a bunch of feminists...." (12/31/2017)

Typical MM junk above.

"Unless of course one is a raging feminist and cannot accept the age-old English usage of 'man' to cover both male and female."

Do you get the picture? It's your favorite false tagline.

I'm very happy with all those quotes. They seem perfectly fair to me. I don't think that I accused anyone of being a liar in them.

 

[Rippon]

I'm very happy with all those quotes.

You can't even blush. That's an intense amount of shame resting on you.

They seem perfectly fair to me.

Your words in those quotes demonstrates that you feel free to say false things about the NIV and its translators any time you wish with no earthly consequences. At least you have no fear that a mod would step in and deal with you. You know that anything approaching one tenth of your foolish remarks aimed at the NKJV would be deleted.

Your infantile feminist plot verbiage stinks to high heaven. It's not the mark of a guy who is reasonable --just unhinged.

I don't think that I accused anyone of being a liar in them.

You charged that the NIV/translators tampered with the Word of God. Of course that's a lie. You constantly charge the translation/translators with dishonesty and mucking about with God's Word. That is sufficient enough to say that you have indeed lied about the translation. You don't get the right to do that. That kind of activity on your part is a violation of BB rules.

 

[Yeshua1]

A grand total of two references in the 2011 NIV don't have son of man --in Ps. 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6.

I have spent countless posts spelling it out for you as to why that term isn't used in those passages.

Those 2 passages on the primary ones though, along with Daniel 7:13-14, in establishing to us the direct link between jesus and Him being the Son of man from OT!

 

[Yeshua1]

Some samples of MM's language regarding the NIV follow:

"How dare these translations keep their readers from finding the Saviour to satisfy a bunch of feminists who don't believe in Him anyway?" (12/18/2017)

I had also quoted from the NET, NLT, CEB and NRSV.

"The NIV has obscured it for no better reason than to placate a bunch of feminists..." (5/2/2017)

Way to go in besmirching the NIV.

"Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists..." (4/18/2017)

You think like a two year old.

"Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your feet." (2/3/2017)

The above is particularly revolting and of course completely untrue. Just throw the mud, and kick back must be your motto.

"Our Lord's words are being mucked about with [sic] in order to satisfy a bunch of feminists...." (12/31/2017)

Typical MM junk above.

"Unless of course one is a raging feminist and cannot accept the age-old English usage of 'man' to cover both male and female."

Do you get the picture? It's your favorite false tagline.

www.bible-researcher.com › English Versions › 20th Century › NIV

Martin and Ii are not alone in this, as the Sbc agrees!

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't even blush. That's an intense amount of shame resting on you.

Your words in those quotes demonstrates that you feel free to say false things about the NIV and its translators any time you wish with no earthly consequences. At least you have no fear that a mod would step in and deal with you. You know that anything approaching one tenth of your foolish remarks aimed at the NKJV would be deleted.

Your infantile feminist plot verbiage stinks to high heaven. It's not the mark of a guy who is reasonable --just unhinged.


You charged that the NIV/translators tampered with the Word of God. Of course that's a lie. You constantly charge the translation/translators with dishonesty and mucking about with God's Word. That is sufficient enough to say that you have indeed lied about the translation. You don't get the right to do that. That kind of activity on your part is a violation of BB rules.

No, rather him and I, along with the Sbc and Lutherans, state that the revision went way overboard in how they handles Inclusive languishing on the Niv 2011

 

[Jerome]

No, rather him and I, along with the Sbc and Lutherans, state that the revision went way overboard in how they handles Inclusive languishing on the Niv 2011

Well said!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A grand total of two references in the 2011 NIV don't have son of man --in Ps. 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6.

And Matthew 18:11, and Matthew 25:13 and Luke 9:56.

 

[Yeshua1]

And Matthew 18:11, and Matthew 25:13 and Luke 9:56.

Jesus saw Himself in the OT scriptures, too bad the Niv 2011 does not in some main ones!

 

[Dave G]

Ouch.
This subject "genders much strife".

All,
I cannot help but compare this, as well as to many other subjects on these forums, to watching MSNBC trot out panels of experts to try and tear down the activities and policies of President Donald Trump...and for the other side to try and tear down Mr. Obama before him.

To me it's an upgrade path, the details of which were engineered for your money on the one hand, and to involve us in in-fighting on the other, and, while important things need to be considered and answered, some of those details are eliciting emotional responses that end up in sin.

To me, rather than stepping back, looking at the entire thing and seeing the bigger picture, many seem content to focus on the fine print and to get riled up over them. I could liken this to comparing football teams and the stats of their players ( which in the eternal sense is pointless anyway ), all the while knowing that the next year it will all change, becoming replaced with new things to get into an uproar over...it's that bad, IMO.

What's it all designed to do?

As I see it, to get us all involved in ultimately fruitless debate full of strife, while the enemy stands outside the whole thing, watching and laughing at us.

Am I passionate about what I feel I am persuaded to hold to, translation-wise? Yes.
Is this subject a matter of sound doctrine? That depends on your perspective.
Does this impact the very words that are on the page and that develop that sound doctrine? Yes. ( Matthew 4:4 ).
Do we need to rip each other apart over the details of it? NO.




Please, present your cases and be gracious to others in the process, OK?


May God bless all of you.