HCSB to the CSB

The Csb does not seem to be as much into the inclusive renderings as the Niv 2011 is, as it seeks to find gender neutral renderings, while at times the Niv seems to be going over into feminism viewpoints...
Case in point, when they use assume authority over a man, and not excercise it!

 

It is a tad less --much more than the HCSB and ESV. But you have said in the past, with no citation of any verses, that the ESV, HCSB and CSB all went too far with inclusive language. So you are backing down now? You admit you were wrong?

What translation are you referencing? Neither "seeks to find gender neutral renderings."

That's a bold-face lie you have been saying for years. You're being sinful to say such a thing.

What you don't understand is that Paul clearly says in the words of the NIV:"I do not permit a woman" Is that clear?
Besides, "assume authority" is the translated rendering of Calvin in this passage of 1 Tim. 2:12.

An example I hope you can understand: Donald Trump assumed authority on Jan. 21st. Women are not to assume authority over a man.

 

They should not be pastors or elders, correct?

 

If you actually read the NIV instead of constantly bashing it with nonsensical lies you would realize that no passage in the New Testament has anyone but men in that position. The trouble is with you --not the NIV. You have to be honest.

 

Regarding Ps. 56:4 : CSB copied the NIV.
Regarding Ps. 62:9 : CSB --common people/ NIV --the low-born/ the HCSB --men
Ro. 3:28 _________ CSB copied the NIV
Ro. 8:29 _________CSB is 99% NIV

 

Hmm...this article by Schreiner and Allen is good. (Although I don't think Allen had nearly as much input as Schreiner.)

Much of the article could be applied to the NIV.

"The SCB also uses the word 'man' in Genesis 1:26,27 --the crucial text about Adam and Eve being created in God's image."

The NIV uses the word mankind in that passage. In # 4, a part of the section says:
"Mankind, for example, has always included male and female. Using a surrogate word in translation is not necessarily an example of gender inclusivity that violates lexical semantics as the authors seem to imply by their example."

"2) What about changing 'father' to 'parent?' We invite the reader to look at key passages like Eph. 6:4;Col. 3:21 and Heb. 12:7 and 9. In each case the word is translated as 'fathers."

And in each of the those passages the NIV also has father in the text.

"The same goes for translating adelphoi as 'brothers and sisters.' Again, the Colorado Guidelines agree. The word is accurately rendered 'brothers and sisters' since the word 'brothers' today suggests to many that just males are intended."

All in all, this article which defends the SCB from misrepresentation and lies also applies to the NIV.

 

So the solid scholars who disagreed with the 2011 Niv were all wrong then?

 

Except that the CSB did not seem to go as much into inclusive language renderings as the niv has...

 

Again, you have ignored my entire post. Why don't you try and deal with the content, instead of making irrelevant statements?

 

Again, the CSB is closer to the NIV than any English Bible translation on the market. It's even closer to it than the NET.

 

I am about to simplify life and turn into a KJV only. Too many new translations complicating life.

 

Since I can't read your facial expression, I can't determine if you are joking or not.

If you're not kidding, I'm sure you meant KJVP, not KJVO.

 

Except that the Csb is not so much into being gender inclusive!

 

I have concluded that you are just into games. Your mental faculties cannot be as bad as it appears.

 

Either the Csb does not use as much inclusive as Niv does, or else both are worse than the original versions!

 

Why can't you comprehend the easiest things? "As much" is a matter of degree --not a vast difference.

Let's use the 1984 NIV as a baseline. Let's put it at ZERO with respect to the use of inclusive language.Just for the purpose of illustration look at the following.

1984 NIV:0-- ESV -- 30-- HCSB --- 40---NET--- 60---CSB ---70---NIV11---75---TNIV ---90---NLT ---100 ---NRSV ---110

 

How do the Nas/Nas compare to these then?

 

The above is from my post #67. So far nobody has taken the time to deal with it.

 

Irrelevant. Look at how the NET, CSB and NIV cluster together with respect to the use of inclusive language.