Featured LCMS Theology Commission

You're confused. you are the one who needs to explain why the HCSB can not stand on par with the NASBU and the ESV.

You deny that the NIV is the Word of God! That far out contention is not merely being negative --it is repugnant.

 

What is wrong with correcting mistaken notions?

 

I totally support the findings of the LCMS.

 

Actually what they say is most profound and should serve as a message to all believers. It is worth repeating:

 

The "findings" of the LCMS are quite ill-founded and unwise to say the least.

 

Are you speaking as founder of NIVO or is that your personal opinion?

 

Would be the conclusion of a majority of those who were not KJVO!

 

Your semantics are confused????

 

what Rippon states would be the position of most who are not KJVO!

 

You are repeating the same "orginal thought" you expressed in another thread...so stale of you.

 

Make up your mind. Are you attempting to make a declarative statement or a question? You don't communicate plainly.

 

Their first example does not hold much water. They said of the first man in Gen 1:26 The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him., but their preferred version (the ESV) says in a footnote for v26 that the first man refers to mankind. So, who is right? The ESV translators or the LCMS? IMO, the LCMS commision already decided that the NIV11 was bad before they ever cracked the cover and latched on to any excuse to justify not reading it any farther.

The LCMS commision should not be commended for their stance - they should be challenged to actually study the NIV11.

I will try to look at the second example later.

​

 

To be perfectly clear the footnote in the ESV states: "The Hebrew word for man {Adam} is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam."

 

Well using Dr. Bob's classification I would call myself a KJVO#1 person. I have indicated on other posts that I prefer the KJV. I have other versions, even the brief paraphrase NIV, {Take note Rippon.} but I prefer the KJV because, as I have said elsewhere, I believe it uses a superior Greek text and has stood the test of time.

 

Why should I take note? Taking note is something said that is new. Your view is old and stale and utterly wrong.

Well,the Latin Vulgate in its various incarnations has been around a lot longer than the KJV of any stripe. Even you would acknowlege its weknesses. Sorry,you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument.

 

Then why do you waste your valuable time reading them and making snotty comments. You are like a child who dropped his sucker or swallowed his gum, whine, whine, whine! Actually the "take note" comment was inserted just to evoke some snide comment from you.

I can acknowledge nothing about the Latin Vulgate since I have not read it!

I am not arguing with you Rippon. On occasion I respond to your snotty comments. But I have told you before that I do not base my beliefs on what other folks believe or, for that matter, what other people think about me.

I could care less about you or what you have to say Rippon. You apparently have some psychological problem related to the NIV because you become irrational when someone raises a question about it. There are half dozen or so threads on this Forum where folks have remarked about the NIV. Anything negative prompts an insulting or snotty response from you. It is really quite strange?

 

Then that means you have the capacity to care more.

Not at all. I become extremely reasonable and then you have your tirades that it isn't even the Word of God and that it is a mere paraphrase which no knowledgeable New Testament scholar has ever even hinted at.

 

A perfect demonstration of what is wrong with a paraphrase. You have taken my description of the NIV as a "brief paraphrase" and expanded it to a paragraph. You must learn to control your emotions Rippon! I am sure there are anger management classes available to you. At least you could talk to your pastor!

 

Snips from Craig L. Blomberg

He was reviewing The Word of God in English by Ryken.

"Independent analysts have more helpfully described it [the NIV] as attempting to carve out a middle position between the purer forms of consistently literal and consistently dynamic equivalent translations...I can attest that it is closer to an 'essentially literal' translation in far more instances than those in which it resembles the 'pure' dynamic-equivalence model of Eugene Nida,the Good News Bible and the United Bibles Societies' numerous other modern language translations...

 

Yes, I read the entire footnote in my ESV Study Bible even though I did not quote all of it. The study bible says it became the proper name in the latter half chapter 2, 3,4, and 5 wherever it references the one man Adam. So, it appears that they thought the word in chapter 1 meant mankind in general. Hence, my point stands - the LCMS commission is latching on to any excuse to justify not reading the NIV11.

I would actually like to see them do a scholarly critique.