New NIV?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Scott McClare		#21	[-]
Posts: 3217 (09/07/2009 08:04:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I've read that 85% of the New testament (KJV) is Tyndale, and 75% of the Old Testament (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. True for the NT (the precise percentage depends on who you ask), but not for the OT. Tyndale never translated more than the first seven books of the Old Testament - obviously, Genesis through Judges does not constitute even 75% of the Old Testament. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
mko		#22	[-]
Posts: 655 (09/07/2009 08:12:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Pretty sure it's been documented that he translated all the way to 2 Chronicles, though that was only released posthumously by John Rogers. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
SAWBONES		#23	[-]
Posts: 298 (09/07/2009 08:41:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Scott McClare wrote: I've read that 85% of the New testament (KJV) is Tyndale, and 75% of the Old Testament (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. True for the NT (the precise percentage depends on who you ask), but not for the OT. Tyndale never translated more than the first seven books of the Old Testament... --------------------------------------------------------------------- And don't forget his translation of Jonah!
gconan		#24	[-]
Posts: 1039 (09/07/2009 13:52:25) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	mko wrote: Pretty sure it's been documented that he translated all the way to 2 Chronicles, though that was only released posthumously by John Rogers. Correct!!!
gconan		#25	[-]
Posts: 1040 (09/07/2009 14:01:29) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Scott McClare wrote: I've read that 85% of the New testament (KJV) is Tyndale, and 75% of the Old Testament (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. True for the NT (the precise percentage depends on who you ask), but not for the OT. Tyndale never translated more than the first seven books of the Old Testament - obviously, Genesis through Judges does not constitute even 75% of the Old Testament. Thomas Matthew, is, however, in all probability, an alias for John Rogers, a friend and fellow-worker of Tyndale, and the volume is in reality no new translation at all, but a compilation from the renderings of Tyndale and Coverdale. Thus the Pentateuch and the New Testament were reprinted from Tyndale's translations of 1530 and 1535 respectively, with very slight variations; the books from Joshua to the end of Chronicles are traditionally, and lately also by external evidence, ⁽¹⁾ assigned to Tyndale and were probably left by him in the hands of Rogers.
gconan		#26	[-]
Posts: 1041 (09/07/2009 14:07:50) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Ben44 wrote: Re: Tyndale: I've read that 85% of the New testament (KJV) is Tyndale, and 75% of the Old Testament (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. Many memorable verses are thanks to his good work. I was trying to figure out why I could not warm up to the HCSB version and finally realized it was because it is Not in the Tyndale tradition, and thus felt so unfamiliar to me. The KJV clings to memory more than any version I've ever read, yet it would be nice to have a Bible in modern English that has that same power. The NASB is pretty good, but rough reading in the OT. The NKJV is pretty good, but some sentences are awkward because it tries too hard to line up with the original KJV. The ESV might be the answer, but I suspect it will need a few more revisions and polish to improve stylistically. Ben You might want to got directly to Tyndale's Translation's. They seem to me to be easier to read and still stick to the memory. Might I suggest a modern spelling edition? Tyndale's New Testament (Paperback)
Scott McClare		#27	[-]
Posts: 3218 (09/07/2009 15:04:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Pretty sure it's been documented that he translated all the way to 2 Chronicles, though that was only released posthumously by John Rogers. I could be wrong - I've only seen the Heptateuch in print. Still, Genesis to 2 Chronicles is stll not 75% of the text - without looking, I'm not sure if it's even half. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
gconan		#28	[-]
Posts: 1043 (09/07/2009 16:07:13) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Scott McClare wrote: Pretty sure it's been documented that he translated all the way to 2 Chronicles, though that was only released posthumously by John Rogers. I could be wrong - I've only seen the Heptateuch in print. Still, Genesis to 2 Chronicles is stll not 75% of the text - without looking, I'm not sure if it's even half. First, where have you seen a Tyndale Heptateuch in print??? Or did you mean The first Five Books? I have never heard of a Tyndale Heptateuch? Second, the meaning was the original KJV translators (and later editors of The KJV in addition) copied most of their Translation directly from Tyndale. Yes sometimes they changed a word or 2, and even more differences greater than that, but the plain fact is they went straight to Tyndale for the excellent parts of their Translation. When they stuck close to Tyndale it is a fine translation. When they went away- not so good. We are all the poorer for the Books Tyndale did not reach because of his murder.
Ben44		#29	[-]
Posts: 24 (09/07/2009 17:33:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks for the heads up about the Tyndale paperback NT. I was unaware that there was such a book available. Ben
Scott McClare		#30	[-]
Posts: 3220 (09/08/2009 06:02:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	First, where have you seen a Tyndale Heptateuch in print??? My mistake - it turns out it was a Pentateuch, after all. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
caspianrex		#31	[-]
Posts: 2 (09/28/2009 10:30:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I've been following the NIV 2011 story for a couple weeks, and it definitely has lots of people wondering exactly what this new NIV is going to look like. Despite the CBT's claims of wanting absolute "transparency" in all their work, they don't seem to be to keen on answering directly all the questions that have been fired at them about gender language in the update process. I realize they don't want another blot on their marketing record, but it seems to me as if they're trying to pretend that the gender language issue is going to be "no big deal," when in reality, it looks like that 's the MAIN question on most people's minds. As the 2011 NIV gets closer, I think you'll see a lot more focus on that whole gender language issue. If they do actually dump the "old" NIV, they could very well lose their spot as the number one Bible version in America. Who knows? The KJV could rise to the top again. Also, I think the good folks at Crossway (publishers of the ESV) are going to be watching this thing very closely and with great interest. If the NIV loses much of its buying public, the ESV will be ripe to take its place. I suspect you're going to see much of Crossway's marketing targeting potential "converts" from the NIV to the ESV.
SAWBONES		#32	[-]
Posts: 324 (09/28/2009 16:05:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	caspianrex said: "Despite the CBT's claims of wanting absolute 'transparency' in all their work, they don't seem to be to keen on answering directly all the questions that have been fired at them about gender language in the update process." Welcome caspianrex. I agree with you, and suspect that the CBT's "canniness" about the gender-inclusive language issue in the NIV 2011 is because they don't yet know themselves how they're going to handle it. I don't believe they're as firmly committed to any particular translation philosophy as their statements sometimes seem to imply, and they will definitely want to feel out the market on this before bringing out the "update"; if they guess wrong and overemphasize the gender-inclusiveness language, they'll likely lose a large fraction of their potential sales to conservative Evangelicals, while if they backpedal too much from the degree of gender-inclusive language in the TNIV, the more liberal Christians will criticize their integrity. I had great hopes for the original NIV in the late '70s, but I wasn't all that pleased with the results in either the first edition or with the '85 update; IMO they fell down in the details by too frequently resorting to paraphrase. Nonetheless, the NIV turned out to be the bestselling Bible version of the '80s and '90s, until after Y2K the CBT opted for the concept of a "family" of NIV versions, including the rNIV, TNIV and the inclusive language NIV (UK only) as well as the standard NIV. IMHO they're now trying to satisfy too many different Bible purchasers' agendas, some of which involve mutually-exclusive concepts, and I doubt everyone will be pleased in 2011 no matter what choices the CBT ends up making on gender-inclusive language issues.
mko		#33	[-]
Posts: 699 (09/28/2009 17:19:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Straightforward, generally but not exclusively literal (like the KJV or the RSV) seems to be my own preference. Literal but not to a fault... "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
forcyncia		#34	[-]
Posts: 59 (10/04/2009 13:12:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I have the one of the old editions of the NIV. I'm personally disappointed to hear they may make the gender inclusive language a part of the 2011 NIV. It's a bad mistake. What was the mind back in 60+ AD of the writers? More importantly, what is God's mind? I don't believe He ever spoke the language of political correctness. This is like watching a movie about the victorian era and working modern women's issues into it. I'm always miffed when that happens. It's a real disappointment. Initially I was kind of proud that American Zondervan did not publish as early as the eastern side of the pond, which included so many gender friendly changes. It took another year for the American edition to publish without all the severe gender inclusive changes. Oh well. I did buy a King James again because my old Thompson Chain had totally fallen apart, like the cover from the pages, etc. It's not a pretty sight. I think it's too far gone to salvage, even asking for help from a bookbinder. I'm getting back into the swing of KJ and am liking it. After reading all you have to say about the different MVs I don't know which one to gravitate toward. The NIV is like a warm fuzzy to me. It's just comfortable. I use the study notes a great deal for background. Maybe I'm just tired and depressed today? Well, all will happen in its own good time. forcyncia John 15:12 - "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
amarillo		#35	[-]
Posts: 3464 (10/04/2009 16:20:45) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	forcyncia wrote: I have the one of the old editions of the NIV. I'm personally disappointed to hear they may make the gender inclusive language a part of the 2011 NIV. It's a bad mistake. What was the mind back in 60+ AD of the writers? More importantly, what is God's mind? I don't believe He ever spoke the language of political correctness. This is like watching a movie about the victorian era and working modern women's issues into it. I'm always miffed when that happens. It's a real disappointment. Initially I was kind of proud that American Zondervan did not publish as early as the eastern side of the pond, which included so many gender friendly changes. It took another year for the American edition to publish without all the severe gender inclusive changes. Oh well. I did buy a King James again because my old Thompson Chain had totally fallen apart, like the cover from the pages, etc. It's not a pretty sight. I think it's too far gone to salvage, even asking for help from a bookbinder. I'm getting back into the swing of KJ and am liking it. After reading all you have to say about the different MVs I don't know which one to gravitate toward. The NIV is like a warm fuzzy to me. It's just comfortable. I use the study notes a great deal for background. Maybe I'm just tired and depressed today? Well, all will happen in its own good time. i have no problem with a version being dynamically equivalent esp where "man" means people in general and not a specific gender. language changes, and he/she is often replaced by the generic plural "they" in many writing classes nowadays. i guess it's just like not using words like lepta or drachma or denarii but "mites" or "dollars" or somesuch. nothing sinister there. having said that, i do suspect something sinister afoot here, n that's "evangelical feminism," the campaign to update Paul fr his "sexist, patriarchal" rabbinic baggage and make him more in line with Christ, who's argued to respect women more than Paul did. that's at the root of the movt championed by the likes of Gil Bilezikian, which has led to women in the pulpit and, as seen historically, to gay acceptance and, in some cases, ordination as well. i sure do hope i'm wrong abt this. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
77		#36	[-]
Posts: 919 (10/04/2009 18:24:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Amarillo: "having said that, i do suspect something sinister afoot here, n that's "evangelical feminism," the campaign to update Paul fr his "sexist, patriarchal" rabbinic baggage and make him more in line with Christ, who's argued to respect women more than Paul did. that's at the root of the movt championed by the likes of Gil Bilezikian, which has led to women in the pulpit and, as seen historically, to gay acceptance and, in some cases, ordination as well. i sure do hope i'm wrong abt this" 77: I hope you are wrong about that, too. I don't particularly care for gender 'neutral' language, but have no real objections to it, in and of itself. When gender 'neutral' becomes 'inclusive,' however.... Or, when certain motives or biases drive the style of the language.... I have not trusted Zondervan to be honest about their motives since they foisted the TnIV on the public. I suspect that the so-called "new" NIV is another Zondervan shell game. Time will tell. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
77		#37	[-]
Posts: 920 (10/04/2009 18:30:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As an aside, a friend of mine over at the Wittenberg Trail has been pedaling an amusing conspiracy theory wherein Crossway agents have infiltrated Zondervan's echelons and have forced the "new" NIV on them in order to bring Zondervan down, and usher in the age of the ESV. Myself, I think my friend shouldn't drink so many caffeinated beverages during the day - but it is an amusing theory. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
Euthymius		#38	[-]
Posts: 2127 (10/04/2009 19:26:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I likewise see no need for the "amusing conspiracy theory". Zondervan and the Biblica/NIV Committee created their own problem by pushing far too much gender-neutral (or as they prefer, "non-gender specific") stuff in the TNIV, strongly endorsed and heavily pushed by the egalitarian evangelical contingent, then reacting to the more conservative opposition to such with a corporate shrug of the shoulders rather than seriously heeding the complaints. Keeping the old 1984 NIV in print didn't help TNIV sales either (and, had there been little or no complaint about the TNIV, does anyone think the old NIV would have been retained at all?). I still think the NIV steering committee seriously needs to adopt the Colorado Springs guidelines for translation (which have no bearing on whether a translation is formal or dynamic equivalence, but which reflect reasonable translational considerations) if they hope the 2011 NNIV will have a chance of success over against the growing support for the ESV (which has its translational and textual problems as well, though no one seems much to notice).
forcyncia		#39	[-]
Posts: 60 (10/04/2009 19:29:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	amarillo - I'm from the 60/70's and was all caught up in women's rights. So can you imagine my surprise at my present church when they said if I taught a class I would have to be accompanied by a man? But I prayed about it and thought, "Well I joined this Baptist church for the discipline I believed I would get in the Word. Not to upgrade their biblical understanding of women." So I went along with it. amarillo said: having said that, i do suspect something sinister afoot here, n that's "evangelical feminism," the campaign to update Paul fr his "sexist, patriarchal" rabbinic baggage and make him more in line with Christ, who's argued to respect women more than Paul did. Since I've been translating quite a bit of Paul, I find that Paul is not as sexist as people say. Especially in Ephesians 5:21-33, "wives submit yourselves to your husbands." I was shocked to see what I found. Everytime Paul used the word ὑποτάσσω/submit it is used in the middle voice - ὑποτάσσομαι and is translated "submitting yourselves". This is not a command, but an act one performs upon or asks of ones self. In essence, this is free will. It is the husband who gets the Imperative - LOVE! your wife as you love your own self/or body. I see this same pattern in v.21 where Paul enjoins the Church in "submitting themselves one to another in fear of God." The verb is not present in v.22 where Paul enjoins "Wives, ... to the husbands of your own household, as to the Lord." It is in parallel construction to the sentence above in v.21. In v.24 the middle voice is used again, "So just as the Church subjects herself unto Christ, so also wives ... to their own husbands in all things." Here is another case where Paul leaves out the verb regarding the women because it is understood. It is still middle voice. I believe the clincher is v.33 to support my thoughts on this. I checked several versions and no one translates it with the force of Paul's personality in the words he actually used. Maybe Wuest did. I think he did. But not KJV or NIV, Phillips, the Message, or Young. My best word-for-word translation for this is: "Nevertheless, in the same manner let each one of you men, each and every particular one of you thus love the wife of yourself, so that your wife may work upon herself that she might respect you." You can see Paul start to point his finger and start wagging it at these men. He knew each and every one of them - who was a doofus, who was a problem child, who was really working on his walk with the Lord. Paul was really chiding them. Especially when he repeats "every one" even stronger in ἕκαστος. Thayer translates it: "you one by one, each one of you severally", where it is used substantively. It is then followed by a perfect Result Clause indicating that what the wife does is a potential, and not an imperative or even a simple statement. It was hard to express φοβέω/φοβῆται in the middle voice in English, but I decided upon "work upon herself to fear/reverence you". It's a little difficult to word the English to fit the Greek, but that was how I resolved it. These men are really getting pounded by Paul. Paul did not command the women once. If you look at v.33 in an equal negative statement it would read: "If ... each and every one of you do not love your own wife, the result may be that she may not work upon herself to respect you." So why all this bludgeoning of women to obey? Because the cultures translating these verses in the past did not consider women as equal to men before God. The King James is just as guilty as the ESV and NIV. I'm not on my high horse. I just understand that's the way the world goes round. I just keep my nose to the grindstone of my walk in Christ. I'll let y'all worry about your own male selves. forcyncia John 15:12 - "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
forcyncia		#40	[-]
Posts: 61 (10/04/2009 19:31:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The lesson continues, just like it did for me. I was in a Bible Study led by our pastor. We were at Hebrew 5:7-9 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; the the word here for "fear or reverence" is not a verb, but a noun εὐλάβεια meaning fear, reverence, respect. But doctrinally we know that this life of Jesus Christ incarnate was an act of free will, not as a robot who had no choice. Otherwise the sacrifice for the sin of the whole world would have been useless. [You all know that. I just had to say it here.] So I was sitting there thinking the higher thoughts when the lesson finally dropped down into consciousness and I blurted out (could any of you have a problem believing I would blurt anything out?) - "That's why it's in Middle Voice!" Now Pastor is familiar with my rather out of the box thinking and just waited. "That is why ὑποτάσσομαι is middle voice for the wife to husband, the Church to Christ, and the members of the Body one to another - because the Son also submitted Himself to the Father of His own free will." Now when I first discovered the middle voice regarding 'wives to husbands' I went back over it again and again and again, and again... I eventually took it to one of the pastors of our church and asked him, "Have I become a heretic?" He said he did not see anything heretical in what I had found. Here is the significance. This is a beautiful relationship that is repeated throughout the Kingdom of God in the most important relationships that exist. We see this perfect submission in love within the Trinity, we see it is to be between members of the body one to another, between the Church/Bride to Christ, and lastly wife to husband. Not in crass imperative commands, but of free will. It is a beautiful thing, not an excuse for slavery. We see the ἀγάπη love from the Father to Son, Christ to the Church, Body one to another, and husband to wife. This is pretty good stuff, n'est ce pas? This, however does not change anything doctrinally. The husband is still the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. And this is God-breathed scripture which means wives must consider this as not so much as a suggestion, but what they must absolutely strive for. There are plenty of references to wives being the weaker vessel, etc. I'm not even going to get into that. There are spiritual principles at work there, not political or social ones. Did y'all know this? Probably you did. forcyncia John 15:12 - "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." Last Edited By: forcyncia 10/04/2009 19:54:35. Edited 3 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

New NIV?

Tyndale's New Testament (Paperback)

Quick Reply