Sheer Hypocrisy

[Rippon]

About a decade ago I had a conversation with the owner of a local Christian bookstore. I had asked him why he wasn't selling any TNIVs. He gave me the usual drivel about a feminist plot, emasculating men and that the translation was advancing the position that women should be leaders in the home and church --all nonsense of course.

He maintained that as long as he owned the store NO NIV product (except for the 1984 edition would be sold.

Well, after all these years I returned and was surprised to find several shelves with NIVs --the 2011 edition. There were NLTs too. Of course there were mostly ESV on the remaining shelves of Bible translation racks.

Even those who do not like the NIV would say that the 2011 and TNIV are very much alike. I agree.

I saw the owner but decided not to engage him on the issue. I just shook my head.

Isn't it odd that someone could insist that something was terrible for church ten years ago could sell an almost identical product now? If he considered it an evil then --why the big turnaround?

Sheer hypocrisy.

It reminds me of that WORLD magazine's inconsistency twenty years ago. The mag spewed lies all over the place in issue after issue demeaning the TNIV and it translators.

Have they denounced its kissing cousin --the CSB? Of course not. Such hypocrites. They even displayed ads for God's Word Bible translation that uses about as much inclusive language as does the TNIV.

 

[rlvaughn]

Isn't it odd that someone could insist that something was terrible for church ten years ago could sell an almost identical product now? If he considered it an evil then --why the big turnaround?

Sheer hypocrisy.

Possibly, probably, but since you didn't engage him on the topic, it would seem to leave open other possibilities -- for example, he could have changed his mind.

 

[SovereignGrace]

About a decade ago I had a conversation with the owner of a local Christian bookstore. I had asked him why he wasn't selling any TNIVs. He gave me the usual drivel about a feminist plot, emasculating men and that the translation was advancing the position that women should be leaders in the home and church --all nonsense of course.

He maintained that as long as he owned the store NO NIV product (except for the 1984 edition would be sold.

Well, after all these years I returned and was surprised to find several shelves with NIVs --the 2011 edition. There were NLTs too. Of course there were mostly ESV on the remaining shelves of Bible translation racks.

Even those who do not like the NIV would say that the 2011 and TNIV are very much alike. I agree.

I saw the owner but decided not to engage him on the issue. I just shook my head.

Isn't it odd that someone could insist that something was terrible for church ten years ago could sell an almost identical product now? If he considered it an evil then --why the big turnaround?

Sheer hypocrisy.

It reminds me of that WORLD magazine's inconsistency twenty years ago. The mag spewed lies all over the place in issue after issue demeaning the TNIV and it translators.

Have they denounced its kissing cousin --the CSB? Of course not. Such hypocrites. They even displayed ads for God's Word Bible translation that uses about as much inclusive language as does the TNIV.

I think that the growing of the NIV's popularity may have been what changed his mind. He couldn't stand by and let other stores sell them and have himself miss out on all that $, now could he?

I truly love the NIV and the NASB.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just like baking a cake

 

[Covenanter]

50 years ago we were all KJVO and very suspicious of modern versions and language.

Are we all now hypocrites? Bible versions are unlikely to change our theology, but we are becoming familiar with everyday language for religious use, rather than 1600 language, especially for youngsters and those new to the faith.

I use mainly the 1984 NIV and have no intention of replacing it, but I use the 2011 version online. Most churches using the NIV have the 1984 version in the pews, and it would be expensive to replace them.

 

[Rippon]

50 years ago we were all KJVO and very suspicious of modern versions and language.

"We"? Who exactly does that refer to? Your assembly at that time? Or are you making a sweeping generalization that every English speaking person was KJVO? If the latter, you are seriously mistaken.

In your nation J.B. Phillips introduced his translation around 70 years ago (I prefer his 1972 edition). People had choices.

By the way, yesterday I picked up four JBP books for a total price of 80 cents.

 

[Rippon]

Possibly, probably, but since you didn't engage him on the topic, it would seem to leave open other possibilities -- for example, he could have changed his mind.

He might very well have changed his mind.

But this speaks to the kind of mindset many Christians have. They hear bad reports from "experts" like James Dobson ;-) and then speak adamantly against it without personally verifying anything. A decade down the line after all the garbage has been spewed they then quietly have no qualms about it. No remorse, no repentance --just moving along forgetting all the trouble they caused in the first place.

 

[rlvaughn]

If you didn't ask, how can you be sure there was "[n]o remorse, no repentance --just moving along forgetting all the trouble they caused in the first place"?

 

[Logos1560]

50 years ago we were all KJVO and very suspicious of modern versions and language.

A person could have read only the KJV without holding a KJV-only view.

It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view.

A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here (linked) is the way Bob Griffin defines KJVO for Baptist Board purposes. It pretty well corresponds with James White's categories in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Definitions of KJV Only

 

[Rippon]

I went to the bookstore yesterday and still couldn't work up the nerve to discuss the matter.

I was indeed looking for other books. But I went to the shelves with Bible translations and noticed not only 2011 NIVs but TNIVs!

What a turnaround!

 

[Yeshua1]

About a decade ago I had a conversation with the owner of a local Christian bookstore. I had asked him why he wasn't selling any TNIVs. He gave me the usual drivel about a feminist plot, emasculating men and that the translation was advancing the position that women should be leaders in the home and church --all nonsense of course.

He maintained that as long as he owned the store NO NIV product (except for the 1984 edition would be sold.

Well, after all these years I returned and was surprised to find several shelves with NIVs --the 2011 edition. There were NLTs too. Of course there were mostly ESV on the remaining shelves of Bible translation racks.

Even those who do not like the NIV would say that the 2011 and TNIV are very much alike. I agree.

I saw the owner but decided not to engage him on the issue. I just shook my head.

Isn't it odd that someone could insist that something was terrible for church ten years ago could sell an almost identical product now? If he considered it an evil then --why the big turnaround?

Sheer hypocrisy.

It reminds me of that WORLD magazine's inconsistency twenty years ago. The mag spewed lies all over the place in issue after issue demeaning the TNIV and it translators.

Have they denounced its kissing cousin --the CSB? Of course not. Such hypocrites. They even displayed ads for God's Word Bible translation that uses about as much inclusive language as does the TNIV.

Except that much of what you say was drivel was factual!

 

[Yeshua1]

He might very well have changed his mind.

But this speaks to the kind of mindset many Christians have. They hear bad reports from "experts" like James Dobson ;-) and then speak adamantly against it without personally verifying anything. A decade down the line after all the garbage has been spewed they then quietly have no qualms about it. No remorse, no repentance --just moving along forgetting all the trouble they caused in the first place.

You know that there were and still are many who are not thrilled with the revisions that the Niv 2011 brought in on the Niv 1984. Should have updated, but kept their gendering renderings to a minimum!

 

[kyredneck]

He couldn't stand by and let other stores sell them and have himself miss out on all that $, now could he?

Zactly. He's a merchant and selling is his livelihood.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I went to the bookstore yesterday and still couldn't work up the nerve to discuss the matter.

I was indeed looking for other books. But I went to the shelves with Bible translations and noticed not only 2011 NIVs but TNIVs!

What a turnaround!

What’s a T NIV? I still use my very beat up 1984 and I will till it disintegrates

 

[Rippon]

Except that much of what you say was drivel was factual!

From Merriam Webster

Drivel intransitive verb meaning: To talk stupidly and carelessly.

 

[Rippon]

What is a T NIV?

Today's New International Version

 

[Rippon]

You know that there were and still are many who are not thrilled with the revisions that the Niv 2011 brought in on the Niv 1984. Should have updated, but kept their gendering renderings to a minimum!

LOL!! "Gender renderings" --what a laugh.

The inclusive language used in the NET, CSB and 2011 NIV are just about the same. Wake up and tell the truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL!! "Gender renderings" --what a laugh.

The inclusive language used in the NET, CSB and 2011 NIV are just about the same. Wake up and tell the truth.

They should be, since none of them were translating from a formal version viewpoint!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Today's New International Version

Maybe just number them