1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Inclusive Language

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Aug 3, 2014.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 5
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting though that the author of hebrews has spent all of the prior time explaining the greatness of jesus as the messiah, Son of God, and then you would have him mean son of man to be a generic title for all humanity, and not Jesus Christ Himself?

    The entire context begs for Jesus to be the primary object of using the OT psalm,,,
     
    #21 Yeshua1, Aug 7, 2014
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, sometimes the NASB95 translates a word as man, when humans or people are in view. But, on the other hand, it does not translate son of man as humankind, because the phrase is used as a reference to the Messiah.

    Yet another falsehood, the quotes demonstrating the translations were done on purpose have been supplied.

    Note, we are talking about Psalm 8:4, not Hebrews 2:6. This switcharoo is disingenuous.

    Yet another switcharoo, now they are talking about Psalm 8:8, not 8:4.

    No, the NIV translation obliterates the veiled reference to Jesus as "son of man."

    And as has been posted before, if humanity is in view in Psalm 8:4, then rather than translate it as "the son of man" it should be translated as "a son of man." This keeps humanity in the mix, yet does not obliterate the reference to Jesus as identified by Hebrews 2:6.

    Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God. It is worthless as a study bible.
     
    #22 Van, Aug 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2014
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again, you have repeatedly judged the motives of translators with your "bottom lines" which have tuned into your signature.
    You are a riot. I had quoted : "Does pluralizing the construction blur the application of this Psalm to Jesus in Hebrews 2:6?"

    Did you catch the words this Psalm? You are beyond words Van.

    Of course you conveniently left out the eariler paragraph:
    "To address this issue, we must consider the meaning of the psalm both in its Old Testament context and in its application to Jesus in Hebrews 2. It can hardly be denied that the psalmist is speaking inclusively rather than exclusively in Psalm 8. He does not mean, 'What are males...' but rather 'What are human beings...' All commentators agree that 'enosh and ben 'Adam are generic references to humanity."

    Again, here is the NIV translation:
    "what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"

    Here is the rendering from one of your highly recommended versions, the NET Bible:
    "Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them.?"

    In the NET notes human race in the text in Heb. means 'What is man[kind]?' The singular noun ('enosh, 'man') is used here in a collective sense and refers to the human race.

    In the NET notes when the text uses the word mankind in Heb.'and the son of man.' The phrase 'son of man' is used here in a collective sense and refers to human beings.

    All of which proves that your highly recommended NET translation bears out what Fee and Strauss were saying and establishes the legitimacy of the NIV rendering.
    You're a bottom-feeder and should be ashamed of yourself. But you have no capacity to even blush.
     
    #23 Rippon, Aug 7, 2014
  4. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Rippon, no matter how you slander and provide disinformation, the truth will stand forever.

    The NIV mistranslation of Psalm 8:4 obliterates the veiled reference to Jesus as presented in Hebrews 2:6. The attempted justification is without merit, as "a son of man" would preserve the idea of humanity, yet keep Jesus in the mix.

    Next, we get the "two wrongs make a right" liberal argument, since the NET translation of this verse is deeply flawed, it is ok for the NIV translation to be deeply flawed. LOL

    The NIV rendering is illegitimate, violating the context, grammar, and message of Psalm 8:4.

    The Word of God is full of allusions, where a subsequent author uses a phrase or illustration used by an earlier author to bring the full message of God to mind. Too often the NIV breaks those links, robbing God's word of its coherence and power.

    Stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB.

    Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God.
     
    #24 Van, Aug 8, 2014
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, it does no such thing as illustrating that argument as you very well know. The translators of both Bible versions are godly, conservative scholars. You just don't care what you throw out to the public on this forum. Read the works of the translators of the NIV and then hang your head in shame for making repeated basless claims.
    Why should people take your word for anything you say Van? If the NET translation for that passage is so bad -- why do you still recommend that version? You are tremendously inconsistent.
    You went overboard years ago with your continued deliberate distortions, lies and slander.

    Listen up: You need to stop your habitual denigration of the Word of God. Remember what the Scripture says about speaking idle words --you are guilty Van.
     
    #25 Rippon, Aug 8, 2014
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The art/science of bible translation is complex, and sometimes sincere/godly schoalrs just happen to disagree on just how to render the trnslation into English, as not all have the same niews on if the best is a formal/dynamic/mediating stance in certain passages...
     
    #26 Yeshua1, Aug 8, 2014
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rippon attempted to justify one mistranslation because another version also mistranslated the verse. This is the liberal two wrongs make a right argument.

    More slander, more absurd argumentation, more use of fallacy. As a study bible, I recommend the NASB95, and suggest the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV should be used as comparison bibles. Now, if a person cannot understand the NASB, then perhaps the WEB, NET or HCSB would more suitable over and against the ESV, NIV, NIrV, NCV, and NLT.

    More emtpy and slanderous charges, devoid of merit.

    Now to differ with Rippon's choice of translation is to denigrate God's Word. This is all Calvinists have to offer, bash and then shuck and jive.

    There is nothing wrong with attempting to address the paternalistic bias found in older English translation, just as their is nothing wrong with attempting to address needless ambiguity, or willy nilly use of several English words to translate one Greek word meaning. But avoid Bibles with Calvinistic bias, such as those that translate from or since as before.
     
    #27 Van, Aug 8, 2014
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You lie so naturally. You know what you said is completely false and yet you don't care.

    I strongly object to your constant "bottom lines" in which you demean certain Bible translations with your insulting language. That's why your remarks have been deleted by moderators/admins.
    Van the accomplished translator. You charge translators with a "willy nilly" use of phrases to translate one Greek word on occasion. It has to be done Van. Your favorite does it to. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the orginal and English much of the time.

    You fail --again.
     
    #28 Rippon, Aug 8, 2014
  9. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NIV goes overboard and mistranslates the very inspired words of God to rewrite the text to say what it does not say. Many churches are dropping the NIV2011 like a hot potato because the NIV84 is not being provided to the public.

    Yes, many of the older English translations had a paternalistic bias, translating words that referred to people as men, and therefore many modern translations are correcting those errant miscues. But the problem is that some modern translations go to far and change the intended meaning in the name of inclusive language. The NET and NIV translation of Psalm 8:4 provides just such an example of going too far.

    Just because no modern English translation translates the same Greek word meaning with the same word or phrase consistently, does not mean that concordance should not be a goal of the translation team. Why translate the same Greek word as "High Priest" and as "Chief Priest?"
     
    #29 Van, Aug 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2014
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't think that one can judge translate the same meaning each time greek word was used, as contex determines meaning along with the lexicon!

    Do you also view the 1984 Niv as being "calvinistic biased?"
     
    #30 Yeshua1, Aug 9, 2014
  11. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, but I have been told any critical comment directed at any English translation will be viewed as "hate speech" and therefore will not express any view on the ESV, NIV or NLT.

    Words have meanings and sound translation translates the same Greek word meaning in the same English word or phrase to provide correspondence.

    So what exactly is the difference between a high priest and a chief priest, since the same Greek word is rendered one way some of the time and the other way at other times.
     
    #31 Van, Aug 9, 2014
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Welcome words indeed.
     
    #32 Rippon, Aug 9, 2014
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As I said earlier --that is very welcome news to us folks.

    But you have displayed occasional flashes of sobriety in the past such as :

    "The modern translations that I think are the best are : NASB95, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NIV. All of them do a great job and reflect scholarly effort." (12/1/2011)
     
    #33 Rippon, Aug 10, 2014
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Proverbs

    25:10
    84 and E :he
    H and N :the one
    25:19
    84 : the unfaithful
    E : treacherous man
    H : unreliable person
    N : unfaithful person
    25:26
    84 and E : man
    H and N : person
    29:1
    84 : man
    E : He
    H : One
    N : the one
    29:7
    84 : The righteous
    E : A righeous man
    H and N : The righteous person
    29:13
    84 and E : The poor man
    H : The poor
    N : The poor person
    3:13
    84 : the man
    E and N : the one
    H : a man
    12:3
    84 and H : man
    E and N : one
    13:14
    84 : man
    E : one
    H : people
    N : person
    14:7
    84 and H : foolish man
    E : a fool
    N : a foolish person
    14:16
    84 and H : wise man
    E : One who is wise
    N : wise person
    _________________________________________________
    The tallies for non-exclusive language:
    The 84 NIV : 2 out of 11
    The ESV : 6 out of 11
    The HCSB : 7 out of 11
    The NET Bible : 11 out of 11
     
    #34 Rippon, Aug 10, 2014
  15. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rather than claiming inclusive language is better than non-inclusive language, perhaps we should ask what was the intended message of the inspired text. Are all these changes, more accurate translations or are some or all less accurate translations? Gee, we might need to study the actual inspired word meanings.
     
    #35 Van, Aug 12, 2014
  16. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, go for it then Van.
     
    #36 Rippon, Aug 12, 2014
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Trouble is that some assume that there is a male bias in the Bible, that it spoke just to cultural norms of the times, so would be more pen to getting inclusive renderings in there to correct that bias!

    I still see that the Lord has stated that make leadership is His pattern for both the church and the family!
     
    #37 Yeshua1, Aug 13, 2014
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Proverbs

    1:18
    84,E,N ; men
    H, NASB : they

    11:26
    84 : man
    E : him
    H, N : the one

    15:11
    84 :hearts of men
    E : children of men
    H : human hearts
    N : heart of humans

    16:13
    84 : man
    E : him
    H, N : the one

    17:10
    84, E : man
    H : One
    N : The one
    WEB : one

    17:20
    84, E : man
    H, WEB : One
    N : the one

    18:10
    84,H, NASB : the righteous
    E : the righteous man
    N : the righteous person

    19:6
    84, E : man
    H : one
    N : person

    20:27
    84 : the spirit of a man
    E : the spirit of man
    H : person's life
    N : human spirit

    21:24
    84, E : man
    H, N : person

    21:28
    84 : him
    E : man
    H, N : the one

    21:29
    84, E, H : man
    N : the evil person

    24:19
    84 : evil men
    E, H : evil doers
    N : evil people


    24:20
    84, E, : evil man
    H : the evil
    N : the evil person
    ______________________________________________________
    To summarize: The non-exclusive language used in these 14 examples are:

    The 1984 NIV : Once
    The ESV : twice
    The HCSB : 13 times
    The NET : 13 times
    ______________________________________________________
    Now for an overall tally for all 67 instances in these four versions (and note, I sometimes cited the NLT,NASB and WEB):

    The 1984 used non-exclusive language 5 out of 67 times.
    The ESV ________________________ 30 out of 67 times.
    The HCSB _______________________ 51 out of 67 times.
    The NET ________________________ 58 out of 67 times.
     
    #38 Rippon, Aug 13, 2014
  19. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lev. 18:5
    84: man
    E, H : person
    N : anyone

    Numbers 8:17
    84,E,H : man
    N : humans

    Deut. 14:1
    84, N :children
    E,H : sons

    Ezek. 29:11
    84,E : man
    H,N : human

    Ps. 1:1
    84,E,H : the man
    N : the one

    Jer. 22:8
    84,N : people
    E : man
    H : one another
    NASB : they

    1 Sam. 12:6
    84,E : fathers
    H, N : ancestors

    Matt. 12:12
    84, E, H : man
    N : person
    _______________________________________________________
    Mini-tally for this post: Non-exclusive language used :
    1984 NIV : 1 out of 8
    ESV ____: 1 out of 8
    HCSB ___: 4 out of 8
    NET_____: 8 out of 8

    Grand Total up to this point, for non-exclusive language used:

    84 NIV___ : 6 out of 75
    ESV ____: 31 out of 75
    HCSB ___: 55 out of 75
    NET ____: 66 out of 75

    Does anyone out there want to draw any lines of demarcation? I will soon be up to 100 items. Where do you want to draw the line? Versions that have used non-exclusive language less than 70% of the time, less than 50%? Or will reason prevail and context will determine that, and nothing else?
     
    #39 Rippon, Aug 14, 2014
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    was there any valid reason to have the Niv 2005/2011 go so much into inclusive renderings though?
     
    #40 Yeshua1, Aug 14, 2014
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 5
Loading...