Defense of the NIV

[John of Japan]

Weren't the originals though fully inspired and inerrant in all they contained, both in the OT/NT books?

Was the Lord really ivolved directly in an inspiration sense past those original documents, as in the canonization/final stage of the books?

Inspiration is the process through which God gave us the inerrant Bible by moving holy men of old, and breathing out the words of Scripture. This doctrine was exegeted and solidified for evangelicalism by men like Turretin, Warfield, Gaussen and Rice.

Canonization is not a continuation of inspiration, but a separate process by which the Holy Spirit confirmed in the hearts of believers which books were Scripture.

Preservation is a separate process beyond inspiration and canonization through which God providentially guides textual critics, translators, etc. in presenting the Word of God to each new generation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Inspiration is the process through which God gave us the inerrant Bible by moving holy men of old, and breathing out the words of Scripture. This doctrine was exegeted and solidified for evangelicalism by men like Turretin, Warfield, Gaussen and Rice.

Canonization is not a continuation of inspiration, but a separate process by which the Holy Spirit confirmed in the hearts of believers which books were Scripture.

Preservation is a separate process beyond inspiration and canonization through which God providentially guides textual critics, translators, etc. in presenting the Word of God to each new generation.

Would you see God preserving to us His word in the Greek/hebrew texts that we have, or in the various english translations, as KJVO hold?

 

[John of Japan]

Would you see God preserving to us His word in the Greek/hebrew texts that we have, or in the various english translations, as KJVO hold?

I believe that God providentially guides men in the process of human preservation. Other than that I will not comment on the KJVO movement, as I have said before.

This is starting to get away from the OP.

 

[Rippon]

Inspiration is the process through which God gave us the inerrant Bible by moving holy men of old, and breathing out the words of Scripture. This doctrine was exegeted and solidified for evangelicalism by men like Turretin, Warfield, Gaussen and Rice.

I know you love your grandfather,but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned or ranked with Turretin,Warfield and Gaussen when it comes to this subject.

 

[Rippon]

I believe there are many good people who have a more free philosophy of translation than I do who believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. However, I believe that the implications of a verbal-plenary view of inspiration should lead one to a word-for-word philosophy of translation.

You and Ryken speak as one. (That's not a good thing.) On the other side of the postion :

There is a good book by Gordon D.Fee and Mark Strauss called :How to Choose a TRANSLATION for ALL Its Worth. The authors say there is a poor doctrine of verbal inspiration'
"which historically does not refer to the words as 'words in themselves,' but 'words as they convey meaning.' It is precisely at this point that we would argue that a translation that places a priority of meaning over form is much more in keepying with the doctrine of inspiration,since at issue always is the 'meaning'of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine."

"...the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration concerns not words in isolation,but the meaning of those words in context...translation can never be about simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --word-by-word,phrase-by-phrase,clause-by-clause -- to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words,phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that mot closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text,not just its words." (pages 35,36)

 

[John of Japan]

I know you love your grandfather,but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned or ranked with Turretin,Warfield and Gaussen when it comes to this subject.

On the contrary, your prejudice against my grandfather brings you to doubt his influence in this area, especially among SBC leaders of the conservative resurgence. Three different SBC scholars have done their doctoral dissertations on John R. Rice. But this is hardly the place to debate this subject. Join me in the Baptist History forum if you wish.

 

[John of Japan]

You and Ryken speak as one. (That's not a good thing.) On the other side of the postion :

There is a good book by Gordon D.Fee and Mark Strauss called :How to Choose a TRANSLATION for ALL Its Worth. The authors say there is a poor doctrine of verbal inspiration'
"which historically does not refer to the words as 'words in themselves,' but 'words as they convey meaning.' It is precisely at this point that we would argue that a translation that places a priority of meaning over form is much more in keepying with the doctrine of inspiration,since at issue always is the 'meaning'of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine."

"...the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration concerns not words in isolation,but the meaning of those words in context...translation can never be about simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --word-by-word,phrase-by-phrase,clause-by-clause -- to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words,phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that mot closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text,not just its words." (pages 35,36)

How strange. Here I am aligned in opinion with Stine and Nida, liberal originators and propagators of DE, with a couple of conservative scholars on the other side.

I'd still like you to refute Stine and Nida on this, etc. It would be instructive if you would actually show why the verbal plenary position does not lead to an essentially literal method. Verbal inspiration means word-for-word inspiration. So why then is word-for-word translation wrong? The conservative translator more often than not opts for a more literal method. In Translating Truth you have (besides your "enemies" Gruden and Ryken) C. John Collins, Vern Poythress and Bruce Winter.

Fundamentalist scholars all are for an essentially literal method: James Price, Bob Sumner, Robert Gromacki, M. L. Moser, Ian Paisley, Stewart Custer, etc. Bibles International, the BMM Bible society, has as Principle 5 of Anchor Point 4, "Balance careful translation of words with careful translation of the units of speech" (Anchor Points for Scripture Translation Work, p. 13). And so forth.

 

[Rippon]

So why then is word-for-word translation wrong?

The whole term is a misnomer;you have acknowleged so in the past.

The conservative translator more often than not opts for a more literal method.

Name them.

Not just "Fundamentalist scholars."

 

[John of Japan]

The whole term is a misnomer;you have acknowleged so in the past.

I don't remember doing so.

Name them.

Not just "Fundamentalist scholars."

I did. But if you need more, try the NKJV translators, the HCSB translators, the NASB translators, etc., etc.

 

[Rippon]

There is no such animal as a word-for-word translation.

I did.

You primarily listed "Fundamentalist scholars."

But if you need more, try the NKJV translators, the HCSB translators, the NASB translators, etc., etc.

The translaters of the NKJV and NASBU would like their versions to be considered in the essentially literal category. I don't think it really happens as often as it is portrayed.

The HCSB is not a literal one. It is close to the translation style of the NIV;just a tad more literal is all. It's just 2 and a half points away;remember?

 

[John of Japan]

There is no such animal as a word-for-word translation.

Where did I say that?

The translaters of the NKJV and NASBU would like their versions to be considered in the essentially literal category. I don't think it really happens as often as it is portrayed.

The HCSB is not a literal one. It is close to the translation style of the NIV;just a tad more literal is all. It's just 2 and a half points away;remember?

You'll forgive me if I don't consider you qualified in the original languages so as to be able to determine this. The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation, pretty much the same thing as an "essentially literal" one.

 

[Rippon]

Where did I say that?

Pardon me. You did not say that. I have found a quote of yours. You said on 12/10/2011 : "My definition of a word for word translation is one that seeks to represent every word of the original in the target language."

And of course no translation can find a respresentation of every word of the original in the target language. However,knowing you,you might quibble about the word seeks.

The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation, pretty much the same thing as an "essentially literal" one.

Nope. Wrong. Rod Decker regarding mediating translations:"The newer HCSB falls into thias group as well,though perhaps just a tad more formal than the NIV...As for their calling their translation philosophy 'optimal equivalence,' that's just a marketing slogan...It does not present a new way,a third 'pole' on the translation spectrum. It is simply their attempt to balance formal and functional --which is fine,that's what NET and NIV do also. But uninformed rteaders will think it's something new."

Thomas P. Nass : "...the HCSB may be a better overall choice than the ESV or any of the more literal translations."

And to jar your memory a bit...remember David Bell's work : A Comparative Analysis Of Formal Shifts in English Bible Translations With A View Towards Defining And Describing Paradigms.

The numerical values of some noted translations:

NASB = 55
HCSB = 69.90
NIV = 72.40
NJB = 88

There is just a 2 and one half point spread between the HCSB and the NIV which is statistically insignificant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where did I say that?



You'll forgive me if I don't consider you qualified in the original languages so as to be able to determine this. The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation, pretty much the same thing as an "essentially literal" one.

Interesting isn't it though that the nersions that are more literal/formal, are translated by those holding to Verbal Plenary views, and are not nearly as much into "gender issues?" maybe they think the Lord spoke thru His word as was written?

 

[Rippon]

Interesting isn't it though that the nersions [sic]that are more literal/formal, are translated by those holding to Verbal Plenary views...

Name Bible versions in which the translators do not hold to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Name Bible versions in which the translators do not hold to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture.

How about the Rsv/Nrsv versions, as well as one by persons such as NT Wright!

 

[John of Japan]

Pardon me. You did not say that. I have found a quote of yours. You said on 12/10/2011 : "My definition of a word for word translation is one that seeks to represent every word of the original in the target language."

And of course no translation can find a respresentation of every word of the original in the target language. However,knowing you,you might quibble about the word seeks.

Much better. But let's not make this thread about me and my translation method, okay?

Nope. Wrong. Rod Decker regarding mediating translations:"The newer HCSB falls into thias group as well,though perhaps just a tad more formal than the NIV...As for their calling their translation philosophy 'optimal equivalence,' that's just a marketing slogan...It does not present a new way,a third 'pole' on the translation spectrum. It is simply their attempt to balance formal and functional --which is fine,that's what NET and NIV do also. But uninformed rteaders will think it's something new."

Well, shazzam. How does Rod Decker know better than the HCSB what method they used? That's pretty offensive to call their position "a marketing slogan." Knowing Dr. James Price as I do (the man who invented and delineated the term), I guarantee you that it was not just a "marketing slogan." Dr. Price doesn't do "marketing."

And to jar your memory a bit...remember David Bell's work : A Comparative Analysis Of Formal Shifts in English Bible Translations With A View Towards Defining And Describing Paradigms.

The numerical values of some noted translations:

NASB = 55
HCSB = 69.90
NIV = 72.40
NJB = 88

There is just a 2 and one half point spread between the HCSB and the NIV which is statistically insignificant.

Bell was discussing formal shifts with a view to categorizing translations, not translation method per se. Are you aware of what a formal shift is? Tell me, how is it different from a category shift? A level shift?

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting isn't it though that the nersions that are more literal/formal, are translated by those holding to Verbal Plenary views, and are not nearly as much into "gender issues?" maybe they think the Lord spoke thru His word as was written?

"In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs" (NKJV Preface, p. vi).

 

[Yeshua1]

"In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs" (NKJV Preface, p. vi).

if one ascribes to those, as we all should as being either evangelical/Fundamentalists, how could we have any thing other than either a formal or "mediating" equivalence translations, DE not apply?

 

[Rippon]

Well, shazzam. How does Rod Decker know better than the HCSB what method they used? That's pretty offensive to call their position "a marketing slogan."

Dr.Decker,is a respected biblical scholar as well as a fine preacher. He is an honest man. He researches. He has done reviews of the NIV and ESV. I am sure if he were called upon to do a complete review of the HCSB it would be right up his alley.

The HCSB is a mediating version that sits right there with the NAB,ISV,NET and NIV.

Sometimes what is printed in the Preface of some translations do not live up to what is presented. The ESV is a prime example. But the HCSB is no exception.

Knowing Dr. James Price as I do (the man who invented and delineated the term), I guarantee you that it was not just a "marketing slogan." Dr. Price doesn't do "marketing."

I don't think Dr.Price was involved with the production of the HCSB? Am I mistaken?

The translation philosophy of the NKJV and the HCSB are at variance with one another if you haven't noticed. :smilewinkgrin:

Bell was discussing formal shifts with a view to categorizing translations, not translation method per se. Are you aware of what a formal shift is? Tell me, how is it different from a category shift? A level shift?

You make things more complicated than they are. David Bell was trying to establish that there are two categories of translations :traditional and modern. He insists that a big change has come about with the advent of modern versions. He explains in detail how the formal structure of the original text has undergone some restructuring in the modern translations and to some degree in the traditional. He specifies areas such as word order,additions and deletions etc.

I just read again most of his 300-odd pages. he submitted that thing eight years ago. I don't agree with his approach and yet it was helpful to some extent. It was a dissertation I think,otherwise he could have condensed his material to 50 pages or so.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and to translate a given passage. Things can't simply be reduced to two categories.

Anyway,for your reflection,here are some things he said about the HCSB:

"[The] HCSB claims to be middle ground between formal and fuctional equivalence."

"[The HCSB is in "many ways a conservative hybrid between the modern and tradtional translations."

 

[Rippon]

For review,here are some of the numbers that David Bell came up with in regard to the HCSB and the 84 NIV.( He had access to the TNIV at that time, but chose to do his research with the 84 model.)

The lower the number the closer it comes to being more "traditional" and hence closer to the form of the original.

Here are select passages that he delved into. The N stands for NIV;and H stands for HCSB.

Gen. 4
N : 40
H : 49

Ex. 22:1-6
N : 76
h : 81

Hos. 2:1-5
N : 84
H : 88

Ruth 3:13-18
N : 89
H : 90

Job 28:20-28
N : 80
H : 76

Ps. 8
N : 63
H : 64

Matt. 16:13-19
N : 66
H : 59

Acts 14:1-7
N : 77
H : 66

Romans 5
N : 67
H : 62

Rev. 9:7-12
N : 88
H : 75

The range of the HCSB was 49-90
The range of the NIV was 40-89