Good english translation

Thanks for the responses, i'll keep those in mind.

Ezekiel 2:1- 'mortal' instead of 'son of man'
Hosea 1:10- 'children of the living God' instead of 'sons of the living God'
Mark 1:17- 'fish for people' instead of 'fishers of men'
Romans 1:13- 'brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' or 'brethren'

these are just a few examples. also, these inclusive translations tend to neuter male references, or add a feminine alongside them, while leaving female references intact.
maybe calling this absolute heresy is an over-reaction, but I do think this compromises the text.

I don't like replacing "Son of Man" either, but "mortal" is exactly what it means. It was a Hebrew euphemism.. "Man" is already a mortal, but a son of man was meant to illustrate how lowly and mortal it was.

It works when Jesus referred to himself on earth this way as well. He meant he was the earthly representation of the Trinity.

As for the rest, things like "brethren" in Greek did have a more expansive meaning (just as many languages to this day have neutral gendered words). I do think some of these translations go overboard though. I particularly dislike when the need for inclusive words makes the original singular language into plural.

Just to add to this, this is why I prefer the NIV over the NRSV as well. It tends to avoid pluralizing things like the NRSV. For example, in Psalm 1, it doesn't say "Blessed are those", but "blessed is the one" (traditional rendering would be "blessed is the man").

admittedly, 'mortal' captures the meaning, but it loses the rhetorical style.
those are a few convenient examples to give you a sense of it, there are more, but I'd have to dig them up.

I've read that the 2011 version of NIV is much more inclusive, so I'd recommend sticking with the 1984 NIV, which is quite good. it's more accurate than the easiest translations (NLT, GW, etc), while being an easier read than advanced works (KJV, NASB, etc)

Uh yeah, it's probably lower education standards by those doing the reading and a greater amount of brainlets taking up the task since the early modern era needing facilitated renderings. Sales and popularity can be influenced by various factors and don't always translate to the effectiveness of a particular product at its intended purpose over that of another, e.g. soap vs body wash. Similarly the KJV also shouldn't be favored solely on the account of its popularity.

One should also observe how it appears to have been the goal of all the classical churches and into the Reformation era as well, to produce highly literal translations on which their doctrines would be based on, sometimes to the point of sacrificing naturalness in the target language for it.

So the NSRV is the standard of people who are usually not even Christian? That seems like a good reason to avoid it.

Pretty much, as far as I can tell. It's also used by misguided Catholics (Canadians use it in their liturgical readings) who aren't apostates, but live in such pozzed jurisdictions that they are apostate even without willing it themselves. I don't even know why academics use it, as the extensive gender inclusive language gets away from accuracy (I'm the user who mentioned the plural/singular issues above btw.. my IP changed). Otherwise, it's accurate, much like the RSV (and even fixes some issues with the RSV), but that might be a dealbreaker for some.

I'm not totally against gender inclusive language.. as I said, I like the NIV. They're just more careful about it's pitfalls. The previous "TNIV" went overboard, so I think they learned some lessons there. It's main fault is a lack of apocryphal books, since it's Evangelically oriented.. but that's OK. I hold to the smaller canon anyways, and have plenty of apocryphal materials just in case I need them. The great thing about the NIV is it's conservative while being modern, and has a wealth of reference materials. Only the KJV matches it in extraneous references and commentaries. Both of them are awesome for this.. all kinds of biblical scholars write for one or the other in mind. While NASB and ESV are good, they don't even have half of the support behind them as the KJV and NIV. The NRSV has a wealth of materials too, but like we're saying, it's on the apostate academic side.

You realize the NIV removes Acts 8:37 where Philip says the man had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before he was baptized, right? It just removes the entire verse and goes verse 36, verse 38. Most NIV readers probably didn't notice it. The NIV also removed Matthew 18:11 the entire verse, as well as the same part of the parallel passage in Luke 9:55-56.

The NIV says Jesus was "indignant" in Mark 1:41. It's the only translation that attributes a sense of anger to Jesus here. Everyone else said he was moved with compassion at the man kneeling and praying to him to have himself healed if Jesus wills.

The NIV changes Proverbs 17:11 to say "rebellion against God" instead of just "rebellion." So in other words, its okay to rebel as long as you think it's not against God. But they added that extra word changing the meaning. Also in Job 1:6 the NIV changes "sons of God" to "angels" but yet they admit that's just their interpretation, as the footnote at the bottom of the page still gives the actual meaning. So the question becomes why didn't they just leave it in the main text then. Are they admitting to inserting their own ideas here? Are the NIV translators dynamically connecting the dots, as it were, for the readers' own good?

Also the NIV removes the word "Christ" from Acts 2:30. It merely says "a descendant" thus removing another fulfilled prophecy about Christ and turning the whole passage on its head.

Just to place one more, what about Revelation 22:16 in the NIV? It says there that Jesus is the bright and morning star. Yet in the NIV it also says that the person called "morning star" was cut down from heaven, back in Isaiah 14:12. The NIV translators replaced the name of Lucifer or lightbringer with "O Morning Star!" in Isaiah 14:12! So I would ask the NIV readers, was Jesus, who is the bright and morning star, part of that prophecy in Isaiah 14:12? According to your NIV it's the same.

Attached: kjv_1.jpg (480x360, 9.29K)