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

You are the last person to consult about biblical literacy. You really need to secure a copy of the NIrV for your convenience.

 

The valid exceptions invalidate your laziness and profit-driven accusations.

If folks want to be an old stick-in-the-mud and retain translations with no revisions because they don't recognize that there are advances in scholarship and the changes that have taken place in commonly used English...they are welcome to remain in the past.

I did indeed say that. How true it is!

 

The NASBU has "outstanding among the apostles. The NIV has the same rendering. What is your issue?

Do you think if you repeat your common refrain that a lie will transform it self into truth?

 

Sometimes I just gotta grin.

You didn't reply to the point made earlier. If "non-standard English versons" are a negative, in your viewpoint. Argue for "standard English" that you appear to be supporting. Keeping in mind that your own words in this post indicate there is no such thing as "standard English".

Advances in scholarship: I may be laboring under some misunderstandings.
(1) Thought advances being promoted were due to new source documents being discovered. Have often read this over the last 2.5 years or so as the reason for making more revisions. -- Additional manuscript discoveries, etc.

(2) According to your reasoning with regards to English changing, how do you reconcile "advances in scholarship" with movement further and further away from the languages in use at the time scriptures were penned? Please be a little more specific. What advances? Do you include recent advances in computer technology, as well? (That's a loaded question, BTW.)

In closing, with regards to "stick-in-the-mud", "awkward", etc ... etc. do you take the same viewpoint with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?

Oh, BTW. Before I forget: The "valid exceptions" does not invalidate the other items mentioned. My last reply asked you to prove my comments on "lazy" and "profit" are false claims. So far, you haven't done so. -- Just didn't want that to get lost in this flurry of words.

 

In the order of inferior to a bit better:The KJV,NKJV,ESV,NRSV. The HCSB largely tries standard English,the NIV is clearer,and the NLT is the most natural-sounding.

The Scriptures are far more important than our nation's founding documents.

Sorry you are overruled.

 

Of course.

Of course. Who is speaking otherwise?

 

The term "fellow Jews" does not mean males.

There is some divergence of studied opinion whether Junia was a female. I think the greater weight is that Junia was a female.

The context doesn't say that Junia was an apostle.

 

Y-man,please furnish your proof for these two bold lies of yours. The clock is ticking and you haven't owned up yet.

 

That's one of the two big lies that you have yet to document. And you have ignored my posts by Dr. Moo on the subject.

That's big lie #2 from you. You have lots of audacity;no integrity,but lots of audacity.

 

Do you ever read the prefaces of Bible versions? Instead of your slanders, get the views of the translators directly. Don't make things up.

 

For a dose of honesty read the Preface to the TNIV.

 

The best manuscripts indicate it to be "Junia" and there is no record of there being a masculine equivalent.