Hcsb

I see where you messed-up initially. You looked at his figures for Acts 14 on page 139. There he listed the ASV(56),NASB(58),HCSB(66) and NIV(77).However,that was just one of nine divisions he itemized.

Here is another classification for Ex.22 on page 160:ASV(57),NASB(60),NIV(76) and HCSB(81).By the way,the HCSB tied with The Message for that one! Both scored 81.

 

You have made this infantile assertion several times. You are way beyond the time-frame in supporting your ill-founded claims.

 

This one of the occasions where you have severely misinterpreted the words of the 2011 NIV.

The HCSB and ESV ar among many other translations that folks regard as literal or form-oriented. Yet they cannot be considered word-for-word translations. That is unless you'd like to completely redefine what word-for-word means. If you are in favor of interlinears instead of real translations then don't pretend that the HCSB and other versions are really word-for-word. An interlinear would not be considered very accurate by sound translation principles.

 

Okay, since you already know who wrote the citations I quoted above and also know that they will ultimately harm your claims, I will spill the beans for the rest of the board following this discussion.

The quotes were all from one of the translators of the NIV 2011, a man named Dr. Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

He is admitting and agreeing with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood about concerns with several of the NIV 2011 pericopes.

Here is some more on the same debate:

http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the

 

One can "concord" the ESV. One cannot do the same for any version of the NIV. The HCSB is about half way, in that much can accurately be concorded, but some cannot.

And, I prefer the text of the original language for any truly serious study while admitting the advantages of an easy to read version for those who are not equipped to deal with the original languages or for devotional reading. But a translation like the NIV in any guise, the HCSB, NLT, etc., all fall short when it comes to true word studies as they all play foot loose and fancy free with the original langauge word usage. This is no secret nor is it an "attack" just the nature of those particular translations.

Now, again, do you own stock in Zondervan? :laugh:

 

You are mistaken. He has never been part of the NIV translation team.

 

In Defense of the NIV 2011


Posted by Darrell L. Bock on 29 Jun 2011
I regard the recent response to the NIV 2011 by some as unfortunate.
The SBC resolution came from the floor and not from the committee that studied the question. I suspect the CBMW has invested too much in the gender issue to look at these texts in a balanced manner. Their theory of translation was questioned in the original dispute by many top evangelical scholars and the credentials of those working on the NIV are impeccable.
One of my mentors, Ken Barker, worked on the original translation and chaired the committee for years. He was and is well qualified to work on this translation and has been comfortable with the result. Doug Moo is among the finest of evangelical NT scholars today and has taken conservative positions on gender issues for years. This means that the idea or charge of a gender neutering in the NIV 2011 is extremely misdirected. It is a shame this controversy has emerged again (though fortunately with less intensity than the earlier discussion). We all know translations are not perfect, but the NIV has served the church well for decades and will continue to do so. It belongs with the many fine English translations English speaking people have access to today. It can serve as a solid base from which to discuss God's Word. Those who complain about a rendering here and there need to recall that experts do that with every translation because some translation choices are close calls in terms of meaning and context. It sends very much the wrong signal to the church to overreact to a translation of this excellent quality. My hope would be that scholars and pastors can feel comfortable using the NIV 2011. Discuss its renderings here and there. That is normal and healthy as we all wrestle with what God's Word means precisely, but overreaction or acting as if this translation is seriously flawed is a response that teaches the church far less than a healthy engagement with its well rendered text.
I make this note as one who has worked on several translation, knowing how hard such work is. (I have had no role in working on the NIV, so I am merely an observer on this issue.) I also want to assure those who use the NIV that it remains a useful translation, one among many of the best we have.
When we are in a context where we say anyone and then translate either him or them, we are saying the same thing linguistically. So the issue is not the pronouns have been mistranslated. They have been rendered in terms of what they ultimately mean and how wide the intended reference is.
As for trusting the experts, i suspect you want translators who are competent in the language to do the work. Who should do translation but those expert int e language? What I find amazing is that a vast majority of those on the NIV team are conservative when it comes to women's issues, yet they are accused of having an agenda. Something their actual work on the topic has not indicated. All of this tells me the criticism is exaggerated and misdirected. That is the basis for questioning the CBMW response. I argued they were misguided in their initial criticism for the most part (Some texts in the TNIV did deserve critique and I said so in public pieces I wrote on the issue), but it is by far less the case now.

 

Sorry about my error on Bock. He writes as if he were part of the team... But that does not negate what he said.

 

So we were both mistaken. :tongue3:

But the final summary does not make sense, and he doesn't tell us how he got there. Averaging the HCSB you actually get 69.4, which should round off to 69, not 70. And averaging the NIV you actually get 76.7, which would round up to 77, not 73. And that's close to a 10% difference, which is not trivial.

Furthermore, Bell definitely calls the NIV a DE translation, saying "NIV, however, does claim the label of dynamic equivalence"(p. 315). So you really should stop being so touchy about that label for the NIV. In fact, the whole Greek faculty of one well known seminary is convinced the NIV is DE (told me in private conversation).

 

How was I mistaken? You were wrong. His final conclusion was I had initially posted. You,in error, thought some preliminary figures were his final figures.

 

Well,Bell is not factual in that respect. The NIV does not identify itself as DE in any of its literature and especially its Preface. It does not,in fact,claim the label.

 

I have to highlight some things for those hard of hearing.

 

Okay, I was wr...; I was mist...; I was not necessarily informed of all of the facts.

But at least you must admit that yes, there are scholars who call the NIV DE, even if you feel that is wrong. What puzzles me is that you fight hard for the NIV on the one hand, and on the other believe that DE is good, but you are opposed to calling the NIV DE.

 

You can't admit when you are wrong. I just admitted the other day to you that I was wrong in not citing the proper reference etc.where I was dealing with the paraphrases of Jesus. You laid it on quite thick. Now you hesitate to admit that you are indeed mistaken. You claim not to have been informed of all the facts. That would be your problem --not mine. You had access to his paper as I did. I simply stated his final figures. You took issue with his findings and said I was misleading. You were wrong.

You said I only gave the preliminary figures. Wrong. I gave you his final figures.

You said that his final figures were on page 175. Wrong. They were on 314.

You said that he classifies the NIV,NEB and others as dynamic/functional on pages 351-358. Wrong. He does no such thing there. He simply gives the rendering of various translations for passages in Acts,Gen. and Ex.

New Testament scholars are few and far between who make that claim.

DE is good. FE is good. The NIV is neither one exclusively. It is a blending of the two --just as the NET,NAB,ISV and HCSB are. The NIV is a mediating translation leaning slightly toward the formal side.

To do what you have been doing by calling it a dynamic equivalent translation over and over is immature. You have lumped it in with the NEB,TEV and other very dynamic translations. You know better than that. You personally see very little good in the dynamic equivalence method and you view it as a weakening at best, or a denial at worst, of verbal plenary inspiration. You are wrong yet again.

 

And I can add passages from :

Gen. :HCSB (48) :NIV (40)
Ex. HCSB 81 : NIV 76
Acts HCSB 66 :NIV 77

The grand total for HCSB is 709. The grand total for NIV is 734.

Less than 3 points separates these two versions per Bell's study. I have arrived at 69.90 for HCSB. And the NIV clocks in at 72.40. A difference of 2.5 is statistically insignificant I would say.

It mystifies me when folks say that the NIV is dynamic and the HCSB is word-for-word! The two are as close as can be in reality. And reality is not something some people will face up to.

 

How much more time will pass before you give proof of your reckless remarks? Do you know what truth is? Your irresponsible assertions have to be withdrawn unless you decide to document with some substance. Are you up to it?

 

Oh, come on, get a sense of humor. I was admitting I was wrong in a lighthearted way that my son and I use with each other. But I promise, I'll not try kidding with you again.

If you must be strictly serious, here it is: I was dead wrong and you were right. Happy now?

Baloney. I told you I know a seminary--a large, major one, in which all the Greek profs say that the NIV is a DE translation. And there are other scholars who do so. You just can't admit it that there are scholars who disagree with you. And despite your denial about Bell, I gave you a raw quote in which he called the NIV DE.

This may be the most ridiculous statement you've ever made on the BB. To have a differing opinion from you is immature? So all the scholars who say that the NIV is DE are immature? Who made you the maturity police?

 

Rippon's stock goes down every time someone criticizes the NIV. :laugh:

 

Why can't we all just agree here that the NIV is the best of those holding to DE translation theory, while Nasv/NKJV/ESV among best holding to an essential "formal" equivalence theory?

Up to each one to decide which is more accurate expressing actual words of God to us for today?

 

Because -- it doesn't hold to the DE theory. It's a mixture of DE and FE.