Its real predecessor was the TNIV. And the TNIV rendering is exactly the same as the 2011 NIV. Is the meaning of the passage altered to any extent from that of the 84 NIV? Or are you busy making a molehill into a mountain?
You go back and forth on Bible versions TCG. First it was the NASB. Then the TNIV. Then the ESV.Then the 2011 NIV. Now the ESV again. Can you stay put for a while? :)
As far as name is concern, NIV84 is the rightful predecessor here.
Regarding Luke 12:15, by the use of the personal/possessive pronouns, the text is more individualized.
This element is missing in the current NIV's render.
I've never been a fan of the NIV or it's daughters but I won't turn my nose up at them either.
I see your point TC but IMO the passage in the TNIV/NIV2011 is far more memorable and more pleasing to the ear while still conveying the original meaning.
While "your" is justified from the presence of the Greek imperative φυλάσσεσθε, two pronouns are simply untranslated, which would have added to the force of the text.
Why? A gender issue.
It's just that I enjoy making sermon points from words. I like to see them in the translation that I'm using.
I find it interesting that these translations commentaries are more exact than the translations they contribute to.
For example, Douglas Moo, chair of CBT, which is behind the NIV, in his Pillar commentary on Colossians objects to the NIV's untranslations of the first panta anthrwpov at 1:28.
Well I can think of no other reason for changing the 1984 reading, which is perfectly comprehensible.
And as I say, we do not have the right to extract two words out of the Bible for no good reason.
I guess in 84niv, a woman's life can exist in abundance of possessions.. it just says "Man" and "His"...
Did Jesus mean this to only apply to the male gender or both?...
If both, then the pronouns were not dropped for no go reason.
It corrects the meaning here.. I still like the TNIV.. ooops I mean the New NIV!... ROFL...
Don't usually post here, but I can't let this one go. The decision should be based on a loyalty to the text, not on one's political bias. Would anyone reading "man's" think that the woman was excluded?
CBT : "We object very strongly to the accusation that our gender translation decisions were motivated by a desire to avoid causing offense. Our concern is alaways,in every decision we make,to represent God's Word accurately and naturally in modern English --we have no other agenda."
TCGreek, I commend you on your convictions. They've been consistent in terms of textual fidelity. But you've dared question the sacred cow of the NIV. You should've known better :laugh:. And praise the ESV? GASP :eek: