Its also just as bad as the Niv 2011 in regards to inclusive language renderings though!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinistic Bible Translations
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Yes it could
e.g.
KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
The prepositional phase is en hudati in the Greek.
The ramification of "with" over "in" could be in support of baptismal sprinkling or pouring water on infants with a hint of baptismal regeneration of which the CoE was not entirely clear even in the 39 articles of religion.
Article XXVII: Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
The good thing that would preserve the correct intended meaning would be that if one knows the entire scriptures pretty well, one would have to conclude non regen in the water baptism was the right view here!
That's your ill-informed view. As you have adopted amnesia, I'll enlighten you.
With respect to inclusive language the current NIV took some steps back from the TNIV. The NLT and NRSV use it more.
From less to more:
NET, CSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV.
Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. The 1842 revision of the KJV began Matthew 3:11 as follows: “I indeed immerse you in water.”
S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48).
Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with water” (p. 52).
John R. Rice pointed out that "the word translated with in the above verse is usually translated in" (Bible Baptism, p. 41). Richard Pengilly asserted: “’IN water’; not with water,‘ as it is rendered in the English authorized version” (Scripture Guide, p. 14). Pengilly asked: “Would it not be absurd to render the passage [Matt. 3:6] ‘John baptized with the Jordan‘”? (p. 15). Augustus Strong maintained that at texts such as Matthew 3:11 the “en is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place” (Systematic Theology, p. 935). Thomas J. Conant contended that those texts [Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, John 1:26, 31, 33] with the preposition in denote “locality, or the element in or within which the act is performed” (Meaning, p. 100). Hugh Jones claimed that “the ambiguity in the authorized translation of the Bible sometimes confuses the reader in regard to the acts of baptism” (Act, pp. 1-2). He asserted that “John baptized not ‘with’ but ‘in’ water (p. 30).
Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon wrote: “John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire” (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 12).
Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and 1557 Whittingham's also have "in water" at John 1:33.
What percentage did the 1984 Niv have, and what does the 2011 Niv now have for inclusive language?
The 84 NIV is not the Gold Standard. The ESV, NET, CSB, NLT and NRSV all have a lot more.
37818
Well-Known Member
And they all concede to the so called critical Greek New Testament text.
Is that supposed to be news? Around 99% of all translated New Testaments in any language use the CT.
The Niv 1984 was once considered by many though to be indeed the "gold standard", as many who used that version refuse now to use the 2011 revision!
37818
Well-Known Member
And do you or do you not see that as a problem? Why or why not?
Not really, as much more important than which Greek text to use would be the translation philosophy, and also how one views inclusive language!
37818
Well-Known Member
Oh. So what deviates form the original does not matter, is that what you are saying?
The NIV is still #1 in sales. It's popularity has not diminished.
The actual translation philosophy of some of the major English translations are more similar rather than dissimilar.
Whew! You just can't shake that bugaboo.
No, but the truth is since we no longer have any of the originals, by what basis are you stating that any Greek text is deviating from them? How can you state with certainty if the TR/MT/ or Ct is closest to the originals? And since they are agree around 98 % to each other, is their differences really affecting any doctrines or theology?
37818
Well-Known Member
The 98% agreement is not at issue. the other 2% is at issue. Where some 90+ of the evidence in agreement on the 2% versus 10% or less of the evidence on the 2%. Who are you going to believe? Accidental versus intentional.
The remaining 2 % are known scribal additions, or different choices made in variants, but again, no doctrine/theology is affected!
As the OP is now banned, this thread is closed.
- Status