NIV or ESV?

[Van]

Hi In the Light, in post #193 you took issue with my statement both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles. But I had shown numerous verses where the NIV mistranslated the inspired word of God.

Now you see very little difference between declaring something and confessing something.

And you see no difference between believe and are justified and believes resulting in righteousness.

And finally profess your faith you see as no different from confess.

Nothing I can add to that.

 

[Rippon]

Now you see very little difference between declaring something and confessing something.

And you see no difference between believe and are justified and believes resulting in righteousness.

And finally profess your faith you see as no different from confess.

Inthelight was right in each of his observations.

Nothing I can add to that.

That's certainly true.
________________________________________________________

Hey, inthelight, I want to apologize for taking this thread off-course. I will stick to the subject-at-hand from now on --NIV or ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi In the Light, in post #193 you took issue with my statement both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles. But I had shown numerous verses where the NIV mistranslated the inspired word of God.

Now you see very little difference between declaring something and confessing something.

And you see no difference between believe and are justified and believes resulting in righteousness.

And finally profess your faith you see as no different from confess.

Nothing I can add to that.

The passages that oyu listed all would mean essentially the same thing though....

 

[Rippon]

ESV = E
NIV = N

From the book of Acts

1:17
E : allotted his share in this ministry
N : shared in our ministry

7:23
E : it came into his heart to visit his brothers
N : he decided to visit his own people

22:22
E : Away with such a fellow from the earth!
N : Rid the earth of him!

22:24
E : examined by flogging
N : flogged and interrogated

23:6
E : the hope and the resurrection of the dead
N : the hope of the resurrection of the dead

 

[JonC]

1 Timothy 1:16
E - But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience
N - But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience

The NIV leaves no question that ἅπας means “immense" (or an earlier NIV, "unlimited") instead of "perfect."

Romans 1:5
E - through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
N - Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

Thankfully the NIV clarifies what is not actually said in the text to ease interpretation. Whether I agree or disagree with the interpretation is not the issue…IMHO it is not the translators job to make the text easier for me to understand. Instead it is their job to accurately translate the original text.

Psalm 24:10
E - The LORD of hosts,
he is the King of glory!
NIV - The LORD Almighty—
he is the King of glory.

Yes, the “Lord of hosts” is difficult to understand. I just don’t know that it literally means the “Lord Almighty.” (Not, of course, that God is not Almighty…just that I am not sure that the Lord of Hosts speaks solely to His omnipotence).

Rippon,

You noted in a previous thread the NIV bashing of Leland Ryken. I got a copy of "The Word of God in English" and read it (most anyway) over the weekend while on vacation. I do not see "bashing" here, but he is opinionated against non-literal translation (focusing on word for word). Thank you for the reference, insofar as his opinion is reflected in that book I am in agreement with the author (the above examples were noted in his book).

I do find it interesting that some tend to cry foul to interpretive weaving when it comes to the US Constitution but don't seem to mind if it is in Scripture.

 

[Van]

The passages that oyu listed all would mean essentially the same thing though....

Right, red is essentially the same as green, a Tesla is essentially the same as a Leaf, and from is essentially the same as before. Gotcha.

Both the NIV and ESV frequently present what the translators doctrine dictated, rather than what is actually presented, the Greek word for confess is different from the Greek word for declare, but they are essentially the same, they are both words.

If you think you know what the Bible says, then it is very easy to play fast and loose with grammar, word meanings, and translation choices to make the translation mesh with your view of what the Bible really meant to say.

 

[Van]

Spot on JonC, liberals treat the Constitution like it was nothing, claiming they can "borrow" power, to use one liberal's word, which means they can violate the Constitution because the ends justify the means. Strange so many Christians advocate treating scripture the same way, it says this, but means that because that is more fair or just or you name the end to justify the means.

I am reminded of what a poet said of those who engaged in free verse, "it is sort of like playing tennis with the net down."

 

[Rippon]

1 Timothy 1:16
E - But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience
N - But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience

The NIV leaves no question that ἅπας means “immense" (or an earlier NIV, "unlimited") instead of "perfect."

Consider another patience passage, Romans 9:22. The ESV,NET,HCSB,NASB and WEB all have it rendered much patience.

The NIV has great patience. The Weymouth reads long-forbearing patience. GWT and ISV both have it rendered as extremely patient.

Romans 1:5
E - through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
N - Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

Thankfully the NIV clarifies what is not actually said in the text to ease interpretation.

Does the ESV? All versions need to clarify. Some do it more, and some do it less. But all do it.

it is not the translators job to make the text easier for me to understand. Instead it is their job to accurately translate the original text.

The two goals are not at cross-purposes.

You confuse form with meaning. Being accurate has to do with an equivalent meaning --not an equivalent form.

Psalm 24:10
E - The LORD of hosts,
he is the King of glory!
NIV - The LORD Almighty—
he is the King of glory.

Yes, the “Lord of hosts” is difficult to understand. I just don’t know that it literally means the “Lord Almighty.” (Not, of course, that God is not Almighty…just that I am not sure that the Lord of Hosts speaks solely to His omnipotence).

I actually prefer the NLTse reading of :"The Lord of Heaven's Armies."

You noted in a previous thread the NIV bashing of Leland Ryken. I got a copy of "The Word of God in English" and read it (most anyway) over the weekend while on vacation. I do not see "bashing" here,

You need to read more carefully. Take a look at an old thread in which I take him to task for that awful book of his.

You will alter your interpretation when you look at his quotes and the utter irrationality that is pervasive within that travesty.

 

[JonC]

I actually prefer the NLTse reading of :"The Lord of Heaven's Armies."

My preference doesn't really matter when it comes to translations, but I do want to know the text. Perhaps “Armies” does represent “Hosts” but then again, perhaps the author was not being so specific (what if it is the heavenly realm as a whole….why decide and narrow a meaning for us where the text has not done so?).

You need to read more carefully. Take a look at an old thread in which I take him to task for that awful book of his.

I know you didn’t recommend his opinion, nor did you “take him to task for that awful book.” You mentioned in passing that he called the NIV mildly dynamic equivalent and was a “NIV basher.” But I take that as a recommendation to check it out for myself. In truth, he objects to the translation but I find no evidence that his opinion is not warranted (regardless of how one “feels” about the NIV or ESV). You probably find it awful because you realize what he states is true but you come to different conclusions in the end. But I will grant you that I need to re-read his work. He does seem biased to the ESV and perhaps so as he was part of that translation team. Stressing the importance of retaining literary devises/methods in translation I do not see that he points out that this is at somewhat of a cost (it is less transparent to the original in some sense…it has to alter wording to honor structure).

 

[InTheLight]

Colossians 2:9

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily [ESV]

C'mon, let's hear you say "deity dwells bodily" quickly, four times in a row...LOL

 

[Yeshua1]

My preference doesn't really matter when it comes to translations, but I do want to know the text. Perhaps “Armies” does represent “Hosts” but then again, perhaps the author was not being so specific (what if it is the heavenly realm as a whole….why decide and narrow a meaning for us where the text has not done so?).



I know you didn’t recommend his opinion, nor did you “take him to task for that awful book.” You mentioned in passing that he called the NIV mildly dynamic equivalent and was a “NIV basher.” But I take that as a recommendation to check it out for myself. In truth, he objects to the translation but I find no evidence that his opinion is not warranted (regardless of how one “feels” about the NIV or ESV). You probably find it awful because you realize what he states is true but you come to different conclusions in the end. But I will grant you that I need to re-read his work. He does seem biased to the ESV and perhaps so as he was part of that translation team. Stressing but justthe importance of retaining literary devises/methods in translation I do not see that he points out that this is at somewhat of a cost (it is less transparent to the original in some sense…it has to alter wording to honor structure).

Think that we need to realise that the esv/Niv/Hcsb are all mediating versions of the Bible, and while all of them are indeed the word of God to us in english, there are times where better to take the more literal "wooden" renderings to us the Nasb might give!

And the Niv is dynamic in the sense it does tend to at times give interpretation of the originals, as also the nasb does, and the Esv does that also, so to me the versions that really qualify as being "essentially literal" would be the Nasb/Nkjv!

 

[JonC]

Think that we need to realise that the esv/Niv/Hcsb are all mediating versions of the Bible, and while all of them are indeed the word of God to us in english, there are times where better to take the more literal "wooden" renderings to us the Nasb might give!

And the Niv is dynamic in the sense it does tend to at times give interpretation of the originals, as also the nasb does, and the Esv does that also, so to me the versions that really qualify as being "essentially literal" would be the Nasb/Nkjv!

The difference, IMHO, is faithfulness to the words vs faithfulness to the author’s intention. The problem is, IMHO, that we all may have varying ideas about the author’s intention while the words are less subjective. Of course, even in choosing the English equivalent there is interpretation involved – but the primary focus is the text…not the thoughts of the author or really even the reader. Interpretation as a focus should, IMHO, come afterwards in the form of teaching, preaching, commentary, etc. based on a representation of the original text. D.A. Carson once pointed out that Scripture does not alleviate the necessity of the evangelist, preacher and teacher…but it seems that that is what many desire (an easy to understand and clear interpretation of Scripture in place of the difficulties associated in the text…to include difficulties that may have been present to the original audience). We simply live in a society that doesn't want to study difficult material when someone else can offer an interpretation for us.

 

[Rippon]

Interpretation as a focus should, IMHO, come afterwards in the form of teaching, preaching, commentary, etc. based on a representation of the original text.

You are confusing interpretation --which is the translation process -with application. The latter is involved teaching, preaching etc.

D.A. Carson once pointed out that Scripture does not alleviate the necessity of the evangelist, preacher and teacher…but it seems that that is what many desire (an easy to understand and clear interpretation of Scripture

D.A. Carson may not be your best ally in seeking to buttress your point of view. He defended and used the TNIV. And now uses and preaches/teaches from the 2011 NIV. The latter is a translation that you are not so keen on. But when one of world's finest theologians speaks/writes you need to listen.

 

[JonC]

You are confusing interpretation --which is the translation process -with application. The latter is involved teaching, preaching etc.

D.A. Carson may not be your best ally in seeking to buttress your point of view. He defended and used the TNIV. And now uses and preaches/teaches from the 2011 NIV. The latter is a translation that you are not so keen on. But when one of world's finest theologians speaks/writes you need to listen.

Yes, I know Carson's support of the TNIV. I am not looking for an ally in Carson, just pointing out the need of interpretation beyond the translation (not just the NIV).

Before I comment I need to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that interpretation IS the translation process (I ask because I thought it obvious that while related they are different disciplines, even in a secular context)? Second, and here I think you may misunderstand my statement, you believe that teaching and preaching Scripture (explaining the meaning of the text) is application?

If I do understand you correctly, then here are my observations.

Translation is “the process of translating words or text from one language into another.” Translation is rendering the text clearly and accurately into a target language. Interpretation is the “action of explaining the meaning of something.” Interpretation includes transforming culturally-specific references into analogous statements that are meaningful to the target audience. Translation is less concerned with explaining the meaning to a target audience than it is with accurately representing the text while interpretation strives to explain what is meant by the translated text. Translation is focused less on the reader and more on the original text. Interpretation is concerned less with representing the actual text and more with conveying the meaning behind the original text. In short, while necessary and related, interpretation is not the "translation process."

Second, preaching and teaching is not application (although application is typically a portion of sermons and lessons...normally after the passage has been "unpacked" or explained).

 

[Rippon]

Before I comment I need to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that interpretation IS the translation process (I ask because I thought it obvious that while related they are different disciplines, even in a secular context)?

Both are part and parcel of the same process.

Second, and here I think you may misunderstand my statement, you believe that teaching and preaching Scripture (explaining the meaning of the text) is application?

In explaining a text, a preacher/teacher applies the meaning of it to our lives.

Translation is “the process of translating words or text from one language into another.” Translation is rendering the text clearly and accurately into a target language. Interpretation is the “action of explaining the meaning of something.” Interpretation includes transforming culturally-specific references into analogous statements that are meaningful to the target audience. Translation is less concerned with explaining the meaning to a target audience than it is with accurately representing the text while interpretation strives to explain what is meant by the translated text. Translation is focused less on the reader and more on the original text. Interpretation is concerned less with representing the actual text and more with conveying the meaning behind the original text. In short, while necessary and related, interpretation is not the "translation process."
[/qote]
The two are inextricably bound up together with one another. One can't legitimately make a neat separation. Translation is not just about replacing words from one language to another. That's too mechanical. It's about reproducing meaning. You, (or whoever you are apparently quoting) think translation is a pure operation with no contaminants of that pesky thing called interpretation. Well, that's just plain stinkin' thinkin.'

I will let Mark Strauss and Gordon Fee explain in their book How to Choose a Translation for All its Worth.

It was published in 2007 before the current NIV came out.

"Before we can translate a single word, we must interpret its meaning in context. Of course it is even more complicated than that, since words get their meaning in dynamic relationship with other words. Every phrase, clause, and idiom must be interpreted in context before it can be translated accurately in English.

Translation is, therefore, always a two-step process: (1) Translators must first interpret the meaning of the text in its original context. Context here means not only the surrounding words and phrases, but also the genre (literary form) of the document, the life situation of the author and the original readers, and the assumptions that these authors and readers would have brought to the text. (2) Once the text is accurately understood, the translator must ask, How is this meaning best conveyed in the receptor language? What words, phrases, and idioms most accurately reproduce the author's message? ... all translation involves interpretation..." (p.30,31)

"As always, meaning trumps form in Bible translation and translators must first of all be good interpreters of the Word." (p.83)

And chapter three of the book The Challenge of Bible Translation is excellent. It's by D.A. Carson, and its called :The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. A snip follows: "And the notion that one can translate responsibly without interpretation is, quite frankly, shockingly ignorant of the most basic challenges facing translators." (p.73,74)

 

[JonC]

Both are part and parcel of the same process.


In explaining a text, a preacher/teacher applies the meaning of it to our lives.

Translation is “the process of translating words or text from one language into another.” Translation is rendering the text clearly and accurately into a target language. Interpretation is the “action of explaining the meaning of something.” Interpretation includes transforming culturally-specific references into analogous statements that are meaningful to the target audience. Translation is less concerned with explaining the meaning to a target audience than it is with accurately representing the text while interpretation strives to explain what is meant by the translated text. Translation is focused less on the reader and more on the original text. Interpretation is concerned less with representing the actual text and more with conveying the meaning behind the original text. In short, while necessary and related, interpretation is not the "translation process."
[/qote]
The two are inextricably bound up together with one another. One can't legitimately make a neat separation. Translation is not just about replacing words from one language to another. That's too mechanical. It's about reproducing meaning. You, (or whoever you are apparently quoting) think translation is a pure operation with no contaminants of that pesky thing called interpretation. Well, that's just plain stinkin' thinkin.'

I will let Mark Strauss and Gordon Fee explain in their book How to Choose a Translation for All its Worth.

It was published in 2007 before the current NIV came out.

"Before we can translate a single word, we must interpret its meaning in context. Of course it is even more complicated than that, since words get their meaning in dynamic relationship with other words. Every phrase, clause, and idiom must be interpreted in context before it can be translated accurately in English.

Translation is, therefore, always a two-step process: (1) Translators must first interpret the meaning of the text in its original context. Context here means not only the surrounding words and phrases, but also the genre (literary form) of the document, the life situation of the author and the original readers, and the assumptions that these authors and readers would have brought to the text. (2) Once the text is accurately understood, the translator must ask, How is this meaning best conveyed in the receptor language? What words, phrases, and idioms most accurately reproduce the author's message? ... all translation involves interpretation..." (p.30,31)

"As always, meaning trumps form in Bible translation and translators must first of all be good interpreters of the Word." (p.83)

And chapter three of the book The Challenge of Bible Translation is excellent. It's by D.A. Carson, and its called :The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. A snip follows: "And the notion that one can translate responsibly without interpretation is, quite frankly, shockingly ignorant of the most basic challenges facing translators." (p.73,74)

I was quoting the dictionary and a technical translation company (secular, not a biblical translation group)...anyway, the definitions are not mine. I would say that translation is an attempt to represent the text while interpretation is concerned with meaning....but you are right that they are interlinked. The issue is whether one focuses more on representing the original text to a target audience or whether one focuses more on representing the meaning behind the text.

For example, the passage in Romans mentioned earlier literally says "obedience of faith." Interpretation would be to render the statement "obedience that comes from faith." It could, however, also mean to represent faith as obedience (in the original text but not the NIV). My preference is that the latter be derived (if it is a correct interpretation) by reading and studying the text (which remains faithful to the less specific original). But I do acknowledge that interpretation is present in translation...I think that very obvious as translators choose the best word to represent the original text. It is when translations go beyond this into an explanation of the text (as the NIV does with the passage in Romans) that raises a question with me. In this example one cannot argue that the passage states obedience is a result of faith even though the text in front of them may say so (because it is not so in the original text - the NIV has made the choice for them). In other words, using the NIV as representative of the original text one would not conclude that there may be other interpretations of the passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

The best translation will take what the original writer actually wrote down, and attempt to bring across in the transaltion what that meant when first written, and try to avoid 'reading back into" it what we think current culture/understanding would have meant to have it say instead!

 

[JonC]

The best translation will take what the original writer actually wrote down, and attempt to bring across in the transaltion what that meant when first written, and try to avoid 'reading back into" it what we think current culture/understanding would have meant to have it say instead!

I think that that is what both the ESV and NIV try to do. The difference in my example is that the text is not as specific as the NIV presents it to be. Perhaps the original author was thinking that obedience is from faith. But we do not know. As presented in the original text and the ESV (and NASB) it can be understood either way (obedience as a result of faith or faith as an act of obedience) while with the NIV it can only mean obedience from faith. I am confident that one can find such flaws in any translation and I am not trying to argue the NIV as an awful translation. I do disagree with the mentality that we need a Bible that clearly states what was diligently studied centuries ago. I do like the goal of representing the text as clearly as possible, knowing of course that there will always be issues in any translation.

 

[Rippon]

I would say that translation is an attempt to represent the text while interpretation is concerned with meaning....but you are right that they are interlinked. The issue is whether one focuses more on representing the original text to a target audience or whether one focuses more on representing the meaning behind the text.

You do not understand what Fee, Strauss and Carson were saying --do you? Translators must first interpret --it is inescapable.

For example, the passage in Romans mentioned earlier literally says "obedience of faith." Interpretation would be to render the statement "obedience that comes from faith." It could, however, also mean to represent faith as obedience

Jon, as I have said, scholars are divided over this. It's as not clear-cut as you want it to be. But translators don't get to put multiple alternatives in the text (except for things like the Amplified Bible).

It gets technical. Deacon (Rob) supplied this quote way back in August of 2007 from Herman Ridderbos's work Paul:An Outline of his Theology (1975).
"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."

Doug Mos in his commentary on Romans takes the genitive as subjective :"obedience that flows from faith."

JohnofJapan said back on 8/7/07 regarding his Japanese translation :"I see that the committee went with the subjective genitive on Romans 1:5."

So there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.

But I do acknowledge that interpretation is present in translation

That's rather weak Jon.

The remaining comments of yours shows that you didn't pay attention to the quotes I provided on the subject.

 

[JonC]

You do not understand what Fee, Strauss and Carson were saying --do you? Translators must first interpret --it is inescapable.

Jon, as I have said, scholars are divided over this. It's as not clear-cut as you want it to be. But translators don't get to put multiple alternatives in the text (except for things like the Amplified Bible).

It gets technical. Deacon (Rob) supplied this quote way back in August of 2007 from Herman Ridderbos's work Paul:An Outline of his Theology (1975).
"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."

Doug Mos in his commentary on Romans takes the genitive as subjective :"obedience that flows from faith."

JohnofJapan said back on 8/7/07 regarding his Japanese translation :"I see that the committee went with the subjective genitive on Romans 1:5."

So there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.

That's rather weak Jon.

The remaining comments of yours shows that you didn't pay attention to the quotes I provided on the subject.

Rippon,

I did pay attention to what you presented. I do agree that the translator also interprets (although I disagree with your comment that "interpretation is translation"). My comment that all translation involves interpretation is weak?...well, I disagree. We are not speaking of the translation process but the final translation submitted as Scripture.

I NEVER suggested that the translation present multiple interpretation and am torn between attributing this to dishonesty on your part or simple "misinterpretation." But I will clarify. If the original test allows for interpretations A and B, then the translation should also allow for interpretations A and B (not offer B as the only conclusion, as the NIV does in the passage I mentioned). For example, I would disagree with translating "the first day" in Genesis as "the first 24 hour period," although I would agree with the interpretation.

While I do not prefer the NIV, I have no problem with it and I do use the interpretation. I find it less reliable, but you can chalk that up to preference if you prefer.