If You or Your Church Switched from NIV to ESV....Why?

[InTheLight]

Thread title says it all. If you or your church has changed from the NIV to the ESV, why? By church change I mean that they now use ESV from the pulpit, use it when projecting verses on video screens, use it in sermon outlines/note taking sheets, etc.

Why would someone prefer the ESV over the NIV?

 

[webdog]

We did. I think it was simply for the convenience of following along with our pastor as he uses the ESV. I downloaded it on my kindle for the same reason. Its the new "in" translation, especially amongst the reformed / determinists.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is a good reason to switch:

Literal Translation

The translators of the ESV followed an essentially literal philosophy of translation. This philosophy aims to translate the precise words of the original text while also taking into consideration differences between the source language and the target language. The intent is to maintain as much as possible the structure of the original text, allowing the reader to discern the distinct styles of the different biblical authors while also retaining maximum clarity. This provides a translation that is transparent to the original text—allowing modern readers to read what the original author wrote.

Dynamic Equivalence Translation

In the middle of the twentieth century another philosophy of translation rose to prominence, a philosophy commonly referred to as "dynamic equivalence." Dynamic equivalence emphasizes the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text may be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with words or phrases intended to communicate the same general concept—a dynamic equivalent. Sometimes this is described as thought-for-thought translation as opposed to an essentially literal word-for-word type of translation. Most recent English Bible translations use dynamic equivalence. A list of these popular translations would include the Good News Bible (1976), the New International Version (1978), the Revised English Bible (1989), the New Living Translation (1996), and Today's New International Version (2005).

One of the fundamental disadvantages of dynamic equivalence translation is that it blurs the line between translation and commentary. Because the books of the Bible are ancient texts there are obscure idioms, customs, and words found in them. The same is true of any ancient text. Essentially literal translations attempt to translate what the author actually wrote and either explain a difficult word or phrase in a footnote or leave such explanations to commentators. Dynamic equivalence translations generally attempt to remove any such difficulties from the text by offering what the translators believe to be a more understandable modern English equivalent. This, by its very nature, however, often involves more subjective interpretation than translation. It also tends to remove any objective controls on the translators. If faithfulness to the words of the original text is rejected as the primary goal of translation, there are no reliable controls. Each translation committee determines for itself the degree to which a translation may depart from the words of the original text. The result is predictably confusing.

http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/

 

[InTheLight]

We did. I think it was simply for the convenience of following along with our pastor as he uses the ESV. I downloaded it on my kindle for the same reason. Its the new "in" translation, especially amongst the reformed / determinists.

I've recently gone back to attending a church that I attended about five years ago and was surprised that the pastor had shifted from the NIV to the ESV. I have also noted that the ESV is the preferred translation of reformed theology. I'm hoping this is NOT the reason my church has made the change.

 

[Rippon]

We did. I think it was simply for the convenience of following along with our pastor as he uses the ESV. I downloaded it on my kindle for the same reason. Its the new "in" translation, especially amongst the reformed / determinists.

So is your church Reformed then WD? I know a few years ago you had said your pastor was a Calvinist.

 

[Rippon]

Here is a good reason to switch:




http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/

It sounds almost that Dr.Ryken must have penned that.

There are so many errors I don't know where to begin.

First,the ESV is not a word-for-word translation. That's their professed ideal but the real deal is far from former. Aside from the awkward and stilted language of the ESV it's not that different from the NIV --just compare the two in the book of Hebrews for instance.

Second the TNIV (the article is aged) was not dynamic-equivalence version,but a mediating translation like the NET Bible,NAB,HCSB etc.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Our church switched to the ESV nearly six years ago when our pastor was first hired. Up to that point, we used the NASB.

Why the switch? I don't know. Pastor's preference?

I don't like the ESV as well as I like the NASB, but I can't complain too much about it. The ESV doesn't always use the best translation of a word or phrase, in my opinion, and sometimes that misses the meaning of the passage. But not seriously, and not often enough I mind that much. I still use my NASB, and read the passages in both adult Bible study and in church from that.

As someone has said, I don't mind the NIV, but it isn't as good a translation, given it is a dynamic (thought-for-thought) translation vs. the literal word-for-word, or in some cases, by necessity, phrase for word translation, of both the ESV and the NASB. For that reason, I can see a church making that change. I am more for a literal interpretation than any other.

 

[webdog]

So is your church Reformed then WD? I know a few years ago you had said your pastor was a Calvinist.

No, but the pastor still is. Working on him

 

[webdog]

Here is a good reason to switch:




http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/

Dynamic equivalence gets a bad rap. It is not much different than reading a FE translation and giving your thoughts on the passage. All English translations are dynamic.

 

[Revmitchell]

Dynamic equivalence gets a bad rap. It is not much different than reading a FE translation and giving your thoughts on the passage. All English translations are dynamic.

Uh no their not.

 

[webdog]

Uh no their not.

Uh, yeah they are based on the translation from Greek and Hebrew to English sentence structure.. At least present an argument if you are going to make a claim
:BangHead:

 

[Revmitchell]

Uh, yeah they are based on the translation from Greek and Hebrew to English sentence structure.. At least present an argument if you are going to make a claim
:BangHead:

You don't seem to know what the difference.

Dynamic equivalence emphasizes the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text may be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with words or phrases intended to communicate the same general concept—a dynamic equivalent. Sometimes this is described as thought-for-thought translation as opposed to an essentially literal word-for-word type of translation.

The translators of the ESV followed an essentially literal philosophy of translation. This philosophy aims to translate the precise words of the original text while also taking into consideration differences between the source language and the target language. The intent is to maintain as much as possible the structure of the original text, allowing the reader to discern the distinct styles of the different biblical authors while also retaining maximum clarity. This provides a translation that is transparent to the original text—allowing modern readers to read what the original author wrote.

 

[webdog]

You don't seem to know what the difference.

So what there refutes what I said? Something 'essentially' being anything proves nothing. All translators use some form of personal opinion from one language to the next. There is no true 'word for word' translation, and if there were, it would not make sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

So what there refutes what I said? Something 'essentially' being anything proves nothing. All translators use some form of personal opinion from one language to the next. There is no true 'word for word' translation, and if there were, it would not make sense.

Just wow. I will leave you with it.

 

[annsni]

We used the NIV84 and it was a decent version, easy to read and readily available. Then the TNIV came out and we were not going to go that way and stuck with the NIV but were clear to people that the TNIV is a different version. Then they came out with the NIV11 but didn't change the name - and it was different enough and had some issues we just were not comfortable with. So we looked at what else was available and while the NASB is probably the best translation out there, the ESV is excellent as well and many of us had already switched to it. The senior pastor often still preaches from the KJV but we have the ESV as our pew Bibles now.

 

[Siberian]

Just wow. I will leave you with it.

Webdog is essentially correct; No English translation is truly literal. However, translations fall somewhere on a scale of more formal to more dynamic. The NIV is far more dynamic in its approach than the ESV. So there is, in fact, a clear difference between the two.

Having a linguistic background, I strongly prefer a more formal (or more literal) approach, and that is why I preach and teach from the ESV (usually). I think it is better for the translator to make the least interpretive decisions as possible when it comes to figures of speech, etc.. The NIV, for the sake of readability, makes more of those interpretive decisions than the ESV does (or NASB, NKJV, etc.). The more formal translations leave more of those decisions to the reader to sort out.

But no translation is actually literal. If such a purist project were attempted the end product would not be very readable.

 

[Revmitchell]

Webdog is essentially correct; No English translation is truly literal.

No he isn't that is not what he argued. His argument was that all translations are basically dynamic simply because they are all translated from the Greek and Hebrew. Showing he did not have an understanding of just what either of them are.

The idea that no translations is truly literal is irrelevant. I do not know anyone who made that claim.

 

[Siberian]

No he isn't that is not what he argued. His argument was that all translations are basically dynamic simply because they are all translated from the Greek and Hebrew. Showing he did not have an understanding of just what either of them are.

The idea that no translations is truly literal is irrelevant. I do not know anyone who made that claim.

Hmm. Maybe you missed what he said...

So what there refutes what I said? Something 'essentially' being anything proves nothing. All translators use some form of personal opinion from one language to the next. There is no true 'word for word' translation, and if there were, it would not make sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hmm. Maybe you missed what he said...

That is what he said. It came out of nowhere I never made that claim nor was it relevant to our discussion. But here is what I responded to:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2043582&postcount=9

 

[Yeshua1]

Webdog is essentially correct; No English translation is truly literal. However, translations fall somewhere on a scale of more formal to more dynamic. The NIV is far more dynamic in its approach than the ESV. So there is, in fact, a clear difference between the two.

Having a linguistic background, I strongly prefer a more formal (or more literal) approach, and that is why I preach and teach from the ESV (usually). I think it is better for the translator to make the least interpretive decisions as possible when it comes to figures of speech, etc.. The NIV, for the sake of readability, makes more of those interpretive decisions than the ESV does (or NASB, NKJV, etc.). The more formal translations leave more of those decisions to the reader to sort out.

But no translation is actually literal. If such a purist project were attempted the end product would not be very readable.

Correct, for if one desired to be "literal" as possible, grab and use either Interlinear, or else Asv 1901 edition!

there is a place for versions such as the Niv/Hcsb/Nlt, especially for newly saved, but for serious studies, would much prefer Nasb/Nkjv/ or Esv!