NIV or ESV?

[JonC]

Okay...

No Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV and ESV are very much alike although the ESV suffers from a lot of awkward,unnatural English. And the NIV is still more closely aligned with the NASBU than it is with the translations on the right side of the spectrum.

The ESV is not so transparent as you apparently think. And the NIV is not a dynamic equivalent version though it uses more than the ESV and NASBU.

It is the best all round English Bible translation. It is a mediating version along with the HCSB,NET,ISV,NAB etc. It's right in the middle. It has things in common with the ESV,NRSV,NASBU & Co. as well as the NLT. It does read well, but it's not easy reading. The NLTse reads even more clearly. The scholarship is top-notch. It has beaten all comers for years. And it really is an international Bible version.

I like aspects of a number of English Bible translations such as the MLB, Norlie, NLTse, NASBU, Phillips, NRSV, NJB, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Lattimore, HCSB. The REB is my favorite as far as elegance goes. However, the NIV has the best elements of the former ones. And it has its share of weaknesses too, as all translations have. But all in all, it demonstrates its versatility in covering most of the bases need in a good Bible translation.

Yes, I am aware of the position the NIV stands within the spectrum. I am also aware of individual preference, opinions, and presuppositions. Although the translators claim a "transparent" method of translation, IMHO it drifts too far towards dynamic equivalency to warrant that description. Your point that it is to the left of "dynamic equivalency" taken, but it is to the right of "transparent" method. The NIV does not suit my needs in terms of a study Bible, however if it does your's...well, have at it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... the NIV is not a dynamic equivalent version ...

Rip, gotta disagree with you here. May I ask, how do you determine it is not a dynamic (or, as some say "functional") equivalent translation? Zondervan's editors say it is a dynamic equivalent.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I am aware of the position the NIV stands within the spectrum. I am also aware of individual preference, opinions, and presuppositions. Although the translators claim a "transparent" method of translation, IMHO it drifts too far towards dynamic equivalency to warrant that description.

You're confused. The NIV translators do not make the transparency claim --the preface of the ESV and ESV's marketing arm do.

And I, of course, do not buy that transparency hype.

 

[Rippon]

Rip, gotta disagree with you here. May I ask, how do you determine it is not a dynamic (or, as some say "functional") equivalent translation? Zondervan's editors say it is a dynamic equivalent.

Google doesn't work in my corner of the world. Care to give me some quotes from Zondervan's editors?

I should turn that around and ask you why you think it should be considered a functionally equivalent translation. What I think you and a lot of other folks have done is to confuse the NIV with the NLTse.

The NIV's actual translation philosophy is rather similar to that of the ESV as Rod Decker has said. And it's even closer to that of the HCSB and NET.

 

[Yeshua1]

Google doesn't work in my corner of the world. Care to give me some quotes from Zondervan's editors?

I should turn that around and ask you why you think it should be considered a functionally equivalent translation. What I think you and a lot of other folks have done is to confuse the NIV with the NLTse.

The NIV's actual translation philosophy is rather similar to that of the ESV as Rod Decker has said. And it's even closer to that of the HCSB and NET.

It once was closer to being in that line, in the 1984 edition, but drifted more in the Tniv/2011 revisions!

Can't we agree that it is NOT based upon a literal word for word translation philosophy?

 

[Rippon]

It once was closer to being in that line, in the 1984 edition, but drifted more in the Tniv/2011 revisions!

Rod Decker made his remark about the kinship translational philosophy of both the ESV and NIV in his review of the 2011 NIV.

Can't we agree that it is NOT based upon a literal word for word translation philosophy?

No version is based "upon a literal word-for-word translational philosophy."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Google doesn't work in my corner of the world. Care to give me some quotes from Zondervan's editors?

Sure. :thumbsup: This is from the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5:

Formal versus Functional Equivalence
"The most fundamental issue in Bible translation is whether to translate according to form or according to function (= meaning). Formal equivalence, also called literal, word-for-word, or direct translation, seeks to retain the formal structure of the source language. Functional equivalence, also known as dynamic equivalence or idiomatic translation, seeks to produce the closest natural equivalent in the receptor language. In reality, there are no pure examples of either approach, and all versions lie on a spectrum between form and meaning. Even the most literal Bible translation must regularly introduce idiomatic readings in order to be comprehensible. Recent versions that are general formal equivalents include NASB, NKJV, ESV, RSV and NRSV. Functional equivalent versions include TEV, CEV, NCV, God's Word, and the NLT. Mediating versions somewhere in between are NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NAB, NET, NJB, and REB.

Both formal and functional versions have a place in Bible study, and students of the word should be encouraged to use a variety of versions from across the translation spectrum. Formal-correspondence versions are helpful for examining the formal structure of the original text, identifying Greek or Hebrew idioms, locating ambiguities in the text, and tracing formal verbal allusions and recurring words. Functional-equivalence versions are helpful for communicating accurately the meaning of the text, and for providing clarity, readability, and natural-sounding language."

First, let me say that it is obvious that no English translation -- or other-language translation, for that matter -- is able to avoid some functional translation. As Zondervan's article here says, it wouldn't make sense literally translated verbatim from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek directly into the receptor language. Therefore, to unequivocally say "That's a formal equivalent" or "That's a functional equivalent" is inaccurate. They all have some of both. As the article points out, those listed in the second or third groups are less formal to greater or lesser degrees than those in the first group. Nonetheless, the NIV is not a formal equivalent. Otherwise it would be listed among the first group.

I disagree with that last statement in the article regarding "communicating accurately the meaning of the text," because a thought-for-thought translation -- a terminology I note Zondervan avoids -- can't possibly convey the literal concept of a phrase or passage if it isn't attempting to use the literal verbal meaning. That does not prevent those functional equivalent versions from being good Bibles, but they fall short, in my opinion, of being able to truly conceive and communicate the thoughts from the original languages.

I should turn that around and ask you why you think it should be considered a functionally equivalent translation. What I think you and a lot of other folks have done is to confuse the NIV with the NLTse.

That's a fair question, and I think the answer lies in Zondervan's encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with the NIV short of the issues that I believe come from a sacrifice of accuracy in a thought-for-thought versus a word-for-word rendering. Any version that places a priority on detailed accuracy rather than readability is going to be naturally superior, in my opinion. The NIV's focus is on the later.

Also, what is not clear, without relying on guided investigation for which there is no space, are the inconsistencies in translation by the NIV. It uses some irregular source texts which I believe result in deviations that do not hold up to scholarly scrutiny. There are also several issues with both translation and English text errors that have escaped careful inspection and revision. That is not to say that the NIV is particularly bad or that the NASB is without flaws. All in all, it comes down to a decision based on preference, and the NIV is not the recipient of the same level of "attention to detail" as the NASB.

The NIV's actual translation philosophy is rather similar to that of the ESV as Rod Decker has said.

I can't agree with that, given that the ESV is much farther toward the end of the formal equivalency scale than the NIV.

And it's even closer to that of the HCSB and NET.

And I agree with that, though I think the HCSB gets unduely panned by its use of contractions. Some of its critics would be silent if the "Don'ts" and "Can'ts" were translated into more formal English.

 

[JonC]

You're confused. The NIV translators do not make the transparency claim --the preface of the ESV and ESV's marketing arm do.

And I, of course, do not buy that transparency hype.

One of us is confused.

"Our aim is to translate the NIV is such as way as to provide the optimum combination of transparency to the original documents...."

http://www.niv-cbt.org/translators/

Stating the obvious (before you say it) we all know that transparency speaks to the philosophy of interpretation and not a claim that the translation is transparent to the original.

 

[Rippon]

Sure. :thumbsup: This is from the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5:

From the article :"Mediating versions somewhere in between are NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NAB, Net, NJB, and REB."

So no, you have not demonstrated that the article argued for the NIV being a functionally equivalent translation. It is mediating as I said.

I disagree with that last statement in the article regarding "communicating accurately the meaning of the text," because a thought-for-thought translation -- a terminology I note Zondervan avoids -- can't possibly convey the literal concept of a phrase or passage if it isn't attempting to use the literal verbal meaning.

A sense-for-sense,phrase-for-phrase --sentence-for-sentence translation is a faithful means of translating Scripture. It has an ancient pedigree. There is no such thing as a one to one correspondence between the original languages and English. So the latter is in operation in Bible translations because of necessity. What you phrase as "the literal verbal meaning" is a no-go. You have to flesh-out your nebulous terminology.

There's nothing wrong with the NIV short of the issues that I believe come from a sacrifice of accuracy in a thought-for-thought versus a word-for-word rendering. Any version that places a priority on detailed accuracy rather than readability is going to be naturally superior, in my opinion. The NIV's focus is on the later.

You are "conveying" some foggy thinking. What constitues "detailed accuracy" in your opinion? The NIV balances faithfulness to the originals with readibility. But there is no perfect balance in any translation. Many times accuracy demands a restructuring of the original sentence structure,punctuation and grammar as I had quoted before.

Also, what is not clear,are the inconsistencies in translation by the NIV.

I wish you would be clear. ;-)

It uses some irregular source texts which I believe result in deviations that do not hold up to scholarly scrutiny.

Such as...?

There are also several issues with both translation and English text errors that have escaped careful inspection and revision.

Such as...?

the ESV is much farther toward the end of the formal equivalency scale than the NIV.

No, it's not. Dr. Rod Decker,recently departed to glory said:"There are far more idiomatic, functional equivalents in the ESV than most people would ever suspect based on the popular perception of this 'essentially literal' translation."

 

[Rippon]

One of us is confused.

"Our aim is to translate the NIV is such as way as to provide the optimum combination of transparency to the original documents and ease of understanding in every verse."

I sit corrected. But note the balance.

Now when ESV promoters say things like "The ESV offers a direct and unobstructed view of the original text" a sense of incredulity emerges to one having common sense. The ESV is not as all-fired secondarily inspired as some think! ;-)

we all know that transparency speaks to the philosophy of interpretation and not a claim that the translation is transparent to the original.

But ESV hawkers do claim that the ESV is transparent to the original autographs.

 

[Rippon]

I think the HCSB gets unduely panned by its use of contractions. Some of its critics would be silent if the "Don'ts" and "Can'ts" were translated into more formal English.

It does indeed go overboard with its abundance of conjunctions and very colloquial expressions like "guys" for example.

Do not confuse proper English with formal equivalency though.

 

[Rippon]

As Zondervan's article here says, it wouldn't make sense literally translated verbatim from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek directly into the receptor language.

In post number 43 you had said:"But thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does."

And I told you in reply:"Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?"

 

[JonC]

Now when ESV promoters say things like "The ESV offers a direct and unobstructed view of the original text" a sense of incredulity emerges to one having common sense. The ESV is not as all-fired secondarily inspired as some think! ;-)

Very true. The ESV is not secondarily inspired at all, and I am getting the feeling that some may be...er...ESVO people. As far as the NIV goes, I think that in striving to "articulate God's unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it if they had been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today" they run the risk not only of misinterpretation but also of decontextualizing Scripture. But I also do not think that the ESV should be taken at face value (all translations need to be scrutinized and studied).

But ESV hawkers do claim that the ESV is transparent to the original autographs.

Only the ignorant ones. Striving for a translation that is transparent to the original text is one thing...claiming you have a translation that is transparent is another.

 

[Van]

I provided examples where the NIV mistranslated verses, and examples where the ESV mistranslated verses, they are both unreliable for a study bible.

Lets compare the NIV 2011 with the NIV 84, and TNIV.

About 61% of the verses of the NIV 2011 are exactly the same as the NIV84. So about 39% of the verses differ. Of these about 31% read the same as the TNIV. And the remaining about 8% are new versions, differing from both the 84 and TNIV.

Thus, the wholesale gender inclusive mistranslations found in the TNIV are also preserved in the NIV 2011, less about 1% of the verses being returned to the NIV84 versions.

So those who want to study as closely as they can the original message as found in the original language, in light of its grammar and historical word meanings, must turn away from the NIV2011 and the ESV.

1) Sanctify means sanctify

2) From means from

3) Son of man is a title for the Christ and should not be removed for political correctness.

 

[Rippon]

Ya must've missed this one

You said on 6/26/2013 :"We use the NIV in church now."

And you said this on the same day: "Quite often the NIV gets it right."

Apparently one year ago you had not yet made your groundbreaking discovery that the ESV and NIV are Calvinistically-inspired translations that must be rooted out.

This is a case of Van vs. Van. Who's gonna' win?

 

[Rippon]

As far as the NIV goes, I think that in striving to "articulate God's unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it if they had been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today" they run the risk not only of misinterpretation but also of decontextualizing Scripture.

Come on now. That's an absurd thing to extrapolate from that quote.

Do you think Martin Luther ran the risk of misinterpretation and decontextualizing Scripture with his translational philosophy?

"Therefore I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses...Words are to serve the meaning,not meaning the words.

...if it were translated everywhere word for word...and not for the most part according to the sense, no one would understand it...We have taken care to use language that is clear and everybody can understand, without perverting the sense.

Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather, he must see to it --once he understands the Hebrew author --that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows."

[From Ernst R. Wendland : Martin Luther --The Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation]

 

[Rippon]

Lets compare the NIV 2011 with the NIV 84, and TNIV.

About 61% of the verses of the NIV 2011 are exactly the same as the NIV84. So about 39% of the verses differ. Of these about 31% read the same as the TNIV. And the remaining about 8% are new versions, differing from both the 84 and TNIV.

Thus, the wholesale gender inclusive mistranslations found in the TNIV are also preserved in the NIV 2011,

Talk about taking a blind leap! You make wild assertions and from that basis contruct completely invalid conclusions.

Many times the identical reading of the text between the TNIV and 2011 NIV have nothing whatsoever to do with inclusive language. The 2011 NIV took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV. (By the way, I agreed with most of the renderings in the TNIV). And by what authority to you call them "gender inclusive mistranslations" Van?

3) Son of man is a title for the Christ

No, it is not a title for Christ alone. Deal with Job 25:6,Ps. 146:3 and Is. 51:12 for starters. Ezekiel was called 'son of man' many times. And of course the term "sons of men" always mean people. Do your homework.

Of course Christ Himself was called the Son of man. And He called Himself that. But you can't deny that many times, especially in the Old Testament the phrase meant a human being. And 'sons of men' meant humanity.

 

[Rippon]

From the article :"Mediating versions somewhere in between are NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NAB, Net, NJB, and REB."

So no, you have not demonstrated that the article argued for the NIV being a functionally equivalent translation. It is mediating as I said.

Dr. Rod Decker,recently departed to glory said:"There are far more idiomatic, functional equivalents in the ESV than most people would ever suspect based on the popular perception of this 'essentially literal' translation."

Thomas Nass in his article :Some Thoughts on the ESV Translation said,among other things:

"Next, if one works, at all with the ESV and the original languages, one can find many examples where the ESV does not translate literally, and no footnote is added...they are not really doing what they promised." (p.8)

"In reality, however, the ESV and NIV follow similiar methods, only the NIV pursues functional equivalence and inclusive language more consistently and to a greater degree." (p.18)

Kevin De Young, a proponent of the ESV has an article called On The Merits of the ESV:

"The difference between the NIV and ESV is not a chasm, but one of degree."

Dave Brunn, author of One Bible,Many Versions:

"It appears that the ideal target range of the HCSB and the NET are fairly close to that of the NIV." (p.69)

 

[JonC]

Come on now. That's an absurd thing to extrapolate from that quote.
Do you think Martin Luther ran the risk of misinterpretation and decontextualizing Scripture with his translational philosophy?

I may have been pushing it with that quote, but yes, I do think Luther ran the risk of misinterpretation and decontextualizing Scripture. I think that the translators of the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. all run that risk...I just think the risk greater when we start implementing “thought for thought” methods of translation.

Luther is a good example. His famous translation of Romans 3:28 (adding the word “alone” to emphasize a theological position…although he was not the first to add it). Regardless of my view of “faith alone,” I do not know that Scripture is where we add to emphasize positions.

 

[evangelist6589]

Not true. It is shown in side by side translations through the use of good lexicons that the NASB and the ESV get the gist of any given passage far more accurately than the KJV, though the KJV is still a powerful translation and very effective in the ministry.

Another reason I prefer them is that I have a Compact reference bible in the KJV and a thin-line NKJV Bible which are perfect for the open air preacher. have 2 ESV Study Bibles, and a TrueTone ESV. These are not very good for street evangelism. Also much of my highlighting and such is in the KJV and the NIV a quick second.