Americas Finest! At least was schooled well enough to know that too much inclusive language can really hurt a translation!
The NIV 2011 edition
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by evangelist6589, Feb 27, 2017.
Page 6 of 8
-
-
-
-
-
It could very well have been a dozen people. But let's say it was one person --a man. This unknown guy is a hypocrite.
Allow me to demonstrate.Regarding the NET Bible no mention was made about gender-inclusive language, although it uses just a bit less than the NIV.
No mention was made of the NLT's gender-inclusive language although it uses considerably more than the NIV.
No mention was made about the extent of gender-inclusive language in the CEB.
The mystery man said, :"The gender-inclusiveness of the REB is troubling." What!? It is about as mild as it gets.
He mentions nothing about the inclusive language in the HCSB or GW translation.
All of the above is tremenously inconsistent, if not, out and out lying.
He says :"The NLT follows a combination of formal equivalence (word-for-word) and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) methods of translation." One would be led to believe that the NLT is further left on those charts than the NIV --which, of couse, is completely false.
He says of the NLT :"It is written in quality and contemporary English." Of course that sentence is itself a poor specimen of English.
Regarding the NRSV :"Also, many consider the NRSV to not be as free-flowing and natural sounding as it could be." Really?! And yet he has no issue with the cumbersome wording of the ESV?!
As all of you know, the NRSV has more inclusive language than the NIV. All he says is that it "gender-inclusive in some of its renderings." Ha, ha. But he says :"Overall, the New Revised Standard Version is a good English Bible translation." I do not disagree with that at all. But if he professes to have profound problems with the NIV, how could he then extoll the NRSV? It just doesn't make any sense.
He says :"The 2011 NIV alters key verses that define the roles of women." That is absolute bunk. The translation does nothing of the kind.
To top things off : throughout his evaluations of dozens of translations he has as a recommended Resource: How To Choose A Translation For all Its Worth by Fee and Strauss. But if he had actually read and absorbed the contents of the book all of his reviews reflect no knowledge of the contents of that resource. The nameless author contradicts himself constantly.
That website is a waste of space and filled with errors. -
-
I'm not very tech savvy, so not sure how that works. -
-
-
Deal with my post number 105, Mr. Lackofspecifics. -
-
-
-
Your foolish NIVO designation is noted. And of course it has been contradicted by many threads of mine in which I have defended and shown my appreciation for a wide variety of English translations.
Try to have some integrity Y-1. -
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
Also the review states ......
"Further, the 2011 NIV alters key verses that define the roles of women (e.g., I Timothy 2:12 and Nahum 3:13)" Rippon claims this to be false. The website seems to favor the ESV, since the hyperlinks in the article open ESV verses. So, let's compare the supposed altered NIV verse to the "correct" ESV reading.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet ESV
And the altered NIV ..
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. NIV2011.
IT appears the claim agaisnt the NIV is false here. It does not vary in meaning from the ESV. It appears Rippon is correct again in his judgement on the article.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
-
-
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
Page 6 of 8