Featured Which was better translation, 1984/2011 Niv?

And I thought I was being gentle with you. Some people...

 

How silly you are. You are unaware that there are archives in which you spell it out?

You have said :

"My preference for the ESV over the NIV is that it is Formal Equivalence." (5/25/2011)
"The NASB is good and the ESV is OK if you like the Critical Text." (9/12/2011)
"It is certainly one of the better translations." (12/17/2011)
"What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV?" (2/2/2017)

 

It did no such thing. You know it did not. By the way, there is no such thing as "gender translation" but I am supposed to translate your goofy posts.

 

Then it would have been less accurate to do so. The ESV, HCSB, CSB and NET all use much more inclusive language than the 84 edition of the NIV. But, since consistency is not a personal strength of yours you have studiously avoided the obvious.

 

When will you provide specifics of your own from the text of the 2011 NIV to back up your charges?

In the past I itemized 100 passages and noted various versions that used inclusive/ gender specific language.

The 84 NIV used it in 12% of the time.
ESV 41%
HCSB 68%
NET 88%.

I didn't factor in the CSB at that time because it didn't exist then. But I am sure it uses more than the NET translation --which puts it neck-to-neck with the 2011 NIV. That's because the 2011 NIV used inclusive language 100% in those 100 passages.

You never challenged the renderings of any of the various versions. That's because you shy away from specifics.

You wobble back and forth on the CSB-- sometimes condemning it for too much gender inclusive language --sometimes not.

 

I have provided you ample opportunity time and time again and yet you have never stepped up to the plate.

And true to your past you have quoted an entire post of mine without dealing with my content. so why quote it in the first place?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to show that kind of ignorance as the above?

 

That's an utter fabrication --a complete falsehood. Why you say such entirely foolish things is beyond me. Don't you EVER verify things before posting?

The NIV has the wording son of man 606 times --the same number as the CSB.

[Personal attack edited.]

 

See this is where your true colors are flying. I point out an utter falsehood of yours and you do not say you are sorry. You make no acknowledgement whatsoever. It's not important to you. What you like to do is throw mud regardless of the facts.

Tell you what --you do your own homework. I'm not doing what should be your own legwork. You do this regularly on the BB and elsewhere. You ask questions that you should have checked out for yourself. Own up to it.

 

You are not telling the truth yet again. Why do you persist in making things up?

Let me refresh your memory even though you posted it a few hours ago. You said:

"And have to have the Son of man readings pretty much abolished all together now?"

[Personal attack edited.]

 

Apart from the last one, they are pretty ancient history.
Having become more acquainted with the ESV recently, I question whether it really is Formal Equivalence throughout. The NASB is far better if you favour accuracy.
It is somewhat better than the NIV, but that is really not saying a lot. NKJV or NASB is the way to go.

 

What definition of 'inclusive language' are you using? Where are you drawing your statistics from?

 

See, here is a post of yours that passes the test of decency.