look at the Sunday school studies from a century ago, and contarst that to modern ones!
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which Bible Translation Should I use?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
look at the Sunday school studies from a century ago, and contarst that to modern ones!
again, the Niv team in their revision "hopped" on the TNIV 2005, with its concession to modern views of evangelical feminism regarding "male bias" from the culture of the times coloring just how the texts have been transalted! [sic)
And you are hopping on the same old lies you have utterfed before despite my quotes of Doug Moo,which you have not botherted to comment upon.
they wanted to 'remidy(sic)/correct" that situation, but in their desire to improve the version, actually made it worse!
Sometime you will actually say something that will make sense;but that time has not yet arrived.
And do you honestly think that ONLY reasons Christians in conservative circles have been against it is die(sic) to promoting the Esv, or else being unlearned, no scholarship?
I have gone over this ground time and time again with you. Do you ever absorb information or must you ask the same old questions which have been answered over and over again?
look at the Sunday school studies from a century ago, and contarst that to modern ones!
That speaks to people having more time not more ability.
I tell you what, you get a choice of surgeons one trained in 1970 with no further training and one trained this year, which one do you want doing your heart surgery?
That speaks to people having more time not more ability.
I tell you what, you get a choice of surgeons one trained in 1970 with no further training and one trained this year, which one do you want doing your heart surgery?
I would rather do a Bible quiz with kids from sunday school 100 years ago then some teachers today!
the bible literacy rate was much higher, just look at what they were required to study and learn for bible knowledge!
And you are hopping on the same old lies you have utterfed before despite my quotes of Doug Moo,which you have not botherted to comment upon.
Sometime you will actually say something that will make sense;but that time has not yet arrived.
I have gone over this ground time and time again with you. Do you ever absorb information or must you ask the same old questions which have been answered over and over again?
WHy was there such a major cow over the NIV 2011 revision in Evangelical baptist circles? Was it due to male domination, poor scholarship, wanting to sell others versions, or what?
WHy was there such a major cow over the NIV 2011 revision in Evangelical Baptist circles? Was it due to male domination, poor scholarship, wanting to sell others versions, or what?
You tell me. I have told you often enough. You are treading old ground.
Or even 30 years ago. My Bible study books from then focus on scripture.look at the Sunday school studies from a century ago, and contrast that to modern ones!
The one they used in the SBC I attended recently was more talk than study of scripture.
If the Bible is truly important to you you will make time to study, learn and understand it in context not in snippets.
Regardless of the translation you choose to use.
From the book and Doug Moo's section:"The NIV...seeks to translate into 'natural'modern English. To be more specific,we want to use English that will be widely understood by people in Africa and India as well as people in North America,by believers and unbelievers,by people with Ph.D.s and those with only a high school education." (p.86)
"'These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from some personal experience;they are based on solid data...the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.[the largest data bank of English usage in the world;more than 4.4 billion words]Our decisions were driven by this research,and our concern was always fidelity to what the original texts were saying. When those texts indicate an exclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term;where they indicated an inclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (87,88)
I have posted this several times to remind the Y-man of his obligations to tell the truth. He has yet to respond.
I have posted this several times to remind the Y-man of his obligations to tell the truth. He has yet to respond.
reponded many times, just curious as to why the Nasb andother MV which have been updated did not go so far into "gender inclusive' language? maybe because the Englsish language has not really changed nearly as much as purported, so not a real need for it to be revised that fashion, or at least nearly as much?
Or even 30 years ago. My Bible study books from then focus on scripture.
The one they used in the SBC I attended recently was more talk than study of scripture.
If the Bible is truly important to you you will make time to study, learn and understand it in context not in snippets.
Regardless of the translation you choose to use.
yes, as we seem to have more of a current events climate to talk around the bible, themn actually getting into it!
And we have teaching that will get to say Romans, but not want to get enough election/predestination or any other biblical truth, as it might ruffle feathers, cause disunity, too hard to grasp etc!
reponded [sic]many times,
You have never responded to the words of Dr. Moo. And of course you have never offered a scintilla of proof for the support of your two glaring falsehoods.
just curious as to why the Nasb andother MV which have been updated did not go so far into "gender inclusive' language? maybe because the Englsish[sic] language has not really changed nearly as much as purported, so not a real need for it to be revised that fashion, or at least nearly as much?
I know that your English needs to be revised;that's for sure.
The NASB and another MV. What is the "other MV"? The NASBU is very conservative. It is a bit behind the times. The ESV leaves it in the dust sometimes in that area.
You have never responded to the words of Dr. Moo. And of course you have never offered a scintilla of proof for the support of your two glaring falsehoods.
I know that your English needs to be revised;that's for sure.
The NASB and another MV. What is the "other MV"? The NASBU is very conservative. It is a bit behind the times. The ESV leaves it in the dust sometimes in that area.
leaves it behind in what? think that most scholars would agree that the Nas is more literal and precise to the Greek NT source than the esv, its just that the Esv read and sounds 'better!"
leaves it behind in what? think that most scholars would agree that the Nas is more literal and precise to the Greek NT source than the esv, its just that the Esv read and sounds 'better!"
Please answer my post number 71.
You have never responded to the words of Dr. Moo. And of course you have never offered a scintilla of proof for the support of your two glaring falsehoods.
I know that your English needs to be revised;that's for sure.
The NASB and another MV. What is the "other MV"? The NASBU is very conservative. It is a bit behind the times. The ESV leaves it in the dust sometimes in that area.
Are you saying that the Nasb does not smoothly read/sound at times? that is to be expected, as they sought to perserve the 'grrek construction" as much as possible into the English translation, and can be spotty at times!
Douglas J.Moo,who heads up that translation team has some things to say on the gender issue.
"Our decisions about gender were part and parcel of our single overall agenda --to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one: (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included)or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
This needs to be repeated.
From the book and Doug Moo's section:"The NIV...seeks to translate into 'natural'modern English. To be more specific,we want to use English that will be widely understood by people in Africa and India as well as people in North America,by believers and unbelievers,by people with Ph.D.s and those with only a high school education." (p.86)
"'These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from some personal experience;they are based on solid data...the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.[the largest data bank of English usage in the world;more than 4.4 billion words]Our decisions were driven by this research,and our concern was always fidelity to what the original texts were saying. When those texts indicate an exclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term;where they indicated an inclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (87,88)
This too needs to be sounded forth for the hard-of-hearing.
From the same book E.Roy Clendenen who represents the Holman Christian Standard Bible says the following:
"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such think as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation." (118)
And Clendenen raises some excellent points on pages 119,120.:
"From the beginning Christainity was a translated faith...all we have of his [Jesus'] words are in Greek --the common Greek understood by the most people...carrying the Christian message across cultures has always involved translating the Scriptures into the languages of those cultures,not forcing the people to learn Greek,Hebrew,and aramaic. And what should and does cause readers to stop and ponder is the profoundness of the message,not the difficulty of the language...Our job as Christians is to understand and teach...not to lay verbal land mines to slow people down...Translating the Bible into the common language of the people,an essential element of the Protestant Reformation,was intended to overthrow the clergy's monopoly on the Bible and make it possible for common people to be nourished by it."
"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such think as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation." (118)
And Clendenen raises some excellent points on pages 119,120.:
"From the beginning Christainity was a translated faith...all we have of his [Jesus'] words are in Greek --the common Greek understood by the most people...carrying the Christian message across cultures has always involved translating the Scriptures into the languages of those cultures,not forcing the people to learn Greek,Hebrew,and aramaic. And what should and does cause readers to stop and ponder is the profoundness of the message,not the difficulty of the language...Our job as Christians is to understand and teach...not to lay verbal land mines to slow people down...Translating the Bible into the common language of the people,an essential element of the Protestant Reformation,was intended to overthrow the clergy's monopoly on the Bible and make it possible for common people to be nourished by it."
This too needs to be sounded forth for the hard-of-hearing.
maybe for his group, but the Tniv 2005 had a definite agenda, and the 2011 pretty much "parroted' what they did!
maybe for his group, but the Tniv 2005 had a definite agenda, and the 2011 pretty much "parroted' what they did!
Read posts 75 and 76,then respond to them. You have avoided them like the plague.
Read posts 75 and 76,then respond to them. You have avoided them like the plague.
basically, we retranslated it in order to help those whose knowledge of English and its use has been "dumbed down"...
And the 2005 revision DID have an agenda behind it!