Featured Any one else think the Niv 2011 went to far in gender Inclusive language in revision?

Uh,no,it doesn't lead to your wild conclusion at all.

In 1 Timothy 3:2-7,for instance take a look at the pronouns regarding the office of overseer(elder)

v.2 faithful to his wife
v.4 his own family
v.5 his own family,how can he
v.6 he...he
v.7 he

And in Titus 16-9

v.6 to his wife,a man
v.7 he
v.8 he
v.9 he...he

 

The 84 NIV didn't use inclusive language nearly as much as the ESV has.

See,two can play at that game.

 

The NASB was last updated in 1995, 18 years ago, lots has happened in that time.

The ESV set out intentionally not use gender language, though it does more then most think and definitely in the footnotes. In a very real sense they started with the the end in mind regardless of what the language might actually say!

Both are fine translations, even used ESV for a while myself, just got tired of having to explain the what was being said. Still believe the best translation is the one you read.

 

there were 13 Apostles. All hand picked by Christ. (not counting Judas)
Junia may have been a disciple but she was NOT an apostle. Those are clearly named and there was not 1 female on the list.

 

So because the 84 NIV uses far less gender-accurate language than the ESV, do you want to conclude that the former is a better version based on that criteria?

You know,for someone like yourself who has made wild,unresponsible claims against the NIV;I will not give you the satisfaction of answering your question until you do your own "responsible" homework.

You need to come clean about your lies first.

 

That was not the source of my displeasure and you know it.

Just make an effort to tell the truth. Christians need to tell the truth.

 

I have both but haven't really noticed much difference (other than the poetry books of the 77). Can you give some examples of the smoothing over?

 

Yeah,that's when you went under another name:JesusFan. Of course that was against BB rules to come up with another identity after you were banned.

 

Again for the umpteenth time:

Your #1 lie said on 4/8/2013 at 2:23PM:"The gender issues in NIV2011 tend to dilute the role distinctions between the sexes."

#2 lie said on 4/19/2013 at 2:31 PM:"The TNIV 2005 had renderings placed within due to the influence of evangelical feminism."

 

So keeping woman out of the pastorate hangs on just one verse? I was always told to very leery one verse doctrines.

 

KJV:"But I suffer a woman not to teach,nor to ursurp authority over the man,but to be in silence.

The words usurp and assume are related. Is the KJV showing an egalitarian bias? Of course not. And neither is the NIV.

The above is transparently silly. With one fell swoop,one verse rendered "assume" is going to amount to women becoming pastors! It's downright KJVOish-sounding. The logic is inane.

Refer to what I wrote above.
_____________________________________________________________

Paul O. Wendland of WELS wrote an article about the NIV's redering of 1 Timothy 2:12. And even though he is in favor of wording it exercizing or having authority,he sees the NIV's redering as acceptable.

"But does the NIV11's translation teach false doctrine? That I believe is the real question. And the answer to it seems to be,'No.' I do not find the CBMW's argument convincing when they say that 'assume authority' must be understood as 'assume authority on one's own initiative.' If I would say in a conversation,'The president assumed office today,' would anyone think,'He means the president is assuming office on his own initiative'? I have a hard time believing it.

In fact,I think that if a reader...were to simply read this entire passage in context,he or she would most likely think,'Paul does not want women to teach men in an authoritative way.' What is more,I fail to see any great difficulty involved in explaining the truth of God's Word from this passage--even the NIV11's wording....The NIV11 still says that the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman. The NIV11 still says that the overseer in the church is to be 'faithful to his wife.' How has a wide open door been given to women pastors when the NIV11 says these things? Just as gender roles could be taught on the basis of the KJV,in spite of 'usurpt authority' in 1 Timothy 2:12,so it will be possible to teach gender roles on the basis of NIV11."

 

No. Both Peter and Paul state this and it is even apparent in the lists of qualities for Elders (Bishops) and Deacons.

 

Regardless of translation this is difficult passage and requires interpretation. This seems to be escaping you.