Rhetorician response to Mexdeaf
Mexdeaf my dear brother:
I think that innately in your question can be found your answer:
There are many who are scholars or who are "scholarly." They know their subject matter quite well.
But then again on the other hand, knowing a particular subject matter in a teaching way, then helping others to know or understand it, and then leading them into a deeper knowledge of it can be completely different than "scholarship" alone. Especially if it needs to be understood and applied in a "real life" circumstance.
Do you not agree?
"That is all!" :thumbsup:
Could the SBC "railed" ON Niv 2011 Because have OWN Bible the HCSB?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by JesusFan, Jul 23, 2011.
Page 3 of 4
-
Rhetorician AdministratorAdministrator
-
-
Was this dealt with already?
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1218
SBC Resolutions
On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version
June 2011
WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and
WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and
WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and
WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and
WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.
8888888888
I am not KJVO, but believe that we must repudiate from Modern Versions which are mostly based on Vatican Text B and BHS compiled by Kittel, which inspires Catholicism.
AV is nothing but the Anglican Version as King James 1 persecuted many Baptists and killed some of the true Believers, but it is based on the correct underlying texts, TR and Ben Chayyim. We don't have many choices based on them, except Webster, KJV, YLT, TMB. Geneva..
Jesus read the Bible in the same compilation as Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts as we read Luke 24:44, Mt 23:35, neither Ben Ashel nor Spetuagint.
-
-
EDIT: Yes, it was passed. More info:
http://petrosbaptist.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/two-resolutions-passed-at-the-sbc-today/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35565
-
Whereas the resolution was inane, hypocritical, and quite stupid --be it resolved that the 2011 will be a big seller and a boon to Christianity. Be it further resolved that such "resolutions" be condemned by more mature believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
Autographs are inspired, and the manuscripts are the copies of the Autographs, only the error portions are the errors.
The root of the most modern versions' NT is nothing but Vatican Text B owned and manipulated by Catholic idol worshippers, Babylon Priests!
As for OT, LXX ( Septuagint) and Ben Asher were not used by Jesus, which Mt 23:35 and Luke 24:44 reveal. -
-
based on HOW adament against NIV 2011 SBC is now! -
Interesting contrast:
Rippon:
-
Some of the resolutions that come forward every year would be entertaining, in a Stephen Colbert sort of way, if not inane to the point of ridiculousness. One is the continuing resolution to pull all SBC kiddos out of public schooling. Others are to condemn this or that public person, homosexuality, etc., none of which is Convention business. -
-
Well and good.
Gender-accurate would be more accurate. ;)
Being committed to the plenary authorty and inspiration of the Scrip[ture and using inclusive language when appropriate are not at odds with one one another.
Ah,Wayne Grudem's thesis that one must lose an iota of male nuance or dire things will happen to the translated text, i.e. it is distorted.
The above is just plain wrong and quite silly. The 2011 NIv certainly has not gone beyond acceptable translation standards. That is unless the pro-ESV lobby think that only translations abiding to the Colorado Springs Guidelines in their entirety are going against acceptable transltion standards. And those who came up with the CSG had to alter the document when it was admitted that a number of items were in fact in error.
Yeah,so what? According to Wayne Lehman,the NRSV used 87.7% inclusive language.
NLT 82.1%
TNIV 80.2%
NET 59.0%
HCSB 33%
ESV 27.4%
NIV 20.8%
So the ESV and HCSB are "guilty" of going beyond the acceptable gender-neutral language of the 84 NIV!
The 2011 NIV uses inclusive language 6% more than the NET Bible. So who really gives a tinker's dime about that?
A whole lot of nonsense was made about the TNIV --sinful nonsense.
The above is pathetic. Saying that the 2011 NIV is an inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture. Why don't you just join hands with the KJVO crowd?
Scholars can differ with one another over renderings of a given passage. But do not go and say that it doesn't qualify as an acceptable translation.
And anyone who signed and supports that nonsensical "resolution" of the SBC better not have and appreciate the NLTse. That would be pure hypocrisy.
Yeah,let's go on similiar missions against the "errors" found in the NASB,NKJ,HCSB and ESV. None of those Bible versions have any doctrinal errors and the 2011 has none as well. Get a life!
Yeah,do the wrong and stupid thing. Make a non-issue a prevailing one that consumes time,effort and money away from a more productive use of those energies --like furthering the Kingdom of God!
Well,you narrow-minded Galatians --who has bewitched you? Their "resolution" wasn't exactly the 95 Thesis.
Whereas the premise of each succeeding point was invalid to start with --be it resolved the Word of God condemns such pettiness and sinful conduct. -
-
The Convention can do NOTHING that is binding on the churches or the people in those churches. The SBC is not a top-down sect of Baptists. Each individual and each church is autonomous. -
-
Rippon, in certain cases the gender could be seen as neutral with no harm done to the text. In other cases, such as when the saved are called "the sons of God" much harm is done, for instance:
1 Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. 2 Instead, he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world. 4 But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “ Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Gal 4:1-7 (HCSB)
The word "sons" is used inclusive of male and female, and rendering this particular passage gender neutral and making it say "sons and daughters" or perhaps "children" makes the passage null and void, for in the biblical system, SONS inherit, daughters do not. What Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is saying here is that WE CAN ALL INHERIT AS IF WE ARE SONS! Praise God, that is so much more powerful than not being capable of inheritance at all!
It is those who do not understand some of the theological issues involved, and who merely wish to make their readers happy (itching ears!) with the text that they read that change elements such as these that are critical to God's revelation for us as His, yes, SONS.
The NIV dances around this somewhat by carefully selecting the times it uses "children" in place of "sons", but the text is still damaged, for Paul intended to use the term "sons" here. If not, he was capable of using other terms, but his argument is that of a lawyer for the Word -- precise and each word parsed to mean exactly what Paul intended to say.
(NIV) 1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.
(TNIV) 1 What I am saying is that as long as heirs are underage they are no different from slaves, although they own the whole estate. 2 They are subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by their fathers. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer slaves, but God’s children; and since you are his children, he has made you also heirs. -
This is Galatians 4:1-7 in the 2011 NIV. Notice how it differs from the TNIV.
What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage,he is no different from a slave,although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also,when we were underage,we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come,God sent his Son,born of a woman,born under the law,to redeem those under the law,that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons,God sent the Spirit who calls out,Abba,Father. So you are no longer a slave,but God's child;and since you are his child,God has made you also an heir. -
-
Why do I have to be part of the SBC in order to speak out? They are issuing misinformation about the 2011 the influence of which goes beyond that particular denomination.
Page 3 of 4