Since C (the NKJV) agrees with the NIV here (A), then you somehow are saying that the ESV (B) is less literal and somehow less faithful in its rendering?
No; exactly the opposite.
The NKJV places 'men' in italics to show that it is not in the text.
Therefore the ESV, which avoids saying 'men' altogether may be the best rendering.
But frankly, any of them are OK.
Please point out what you are referencing in Ps. 24.[/QUOTE]
Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far.
But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy.
The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down.
I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9. https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/
Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far.
But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy.
The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down.
I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9. https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/
[/quote]
Your gratuitous use of gratuitous is grating.
I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.
Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.
I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.
Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.[/QUOTE]
So you have no have no rebuttal of my article and therefore resort to gratuitous insult.
No problem. :)
I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.
Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.[/QUOTE]
the Nin translators stated one of their main objectives was to make sure the version took away the overly masculine emphesis of the times when wriiten
to reflect modern culture views, correct?
So you have no have no rebuttal of my article and therefore resort to gratuitous insult.
No problem. :)[/QUOTE]
Rippon just refuses to see that the 2011 Niv made a good translation worse!
Rippon just refuses to see that the 2011 Niv made a good translation worse![/QUOTE]
That version is not the subject of this thread as I have said time and again.
You are probably as hard of hearing as you are at have difficulty understanding plain English.
In post 12 you merely recorded that four ESV verse snips were closer to the language of the NKJV.
I had cited 14 passages. You have ignored the bulk of them and barely tried to answer my initial question.
Give it another go.
(By the way, the current NIV has the same wording as the ESV in 16:11, 17:8 and 19:14)