Featured Why the ESV Falters

You got it right here, but contradict yourself in another thread insisting the NRSV uses only one sentence for that passage.

 

The LEB and the NRSV are two entirely different translations, and their New Testaments are translated from different Greek texts! I have NEVER insisted, said, implied, or suggested that the NRSV uses one sentence to translate Eph. 1:3-14.

 

The main problem with this though is that the most important aspect for any translation is just how close that it is to what the original texts as given from God unto were, and think that the Esv scores quite well in that regards!

 

HAHA, anyone recommending the NIV 2011 over the ESV has disqualified himself. I won't download the PDF because the download cite wants personal information.

 

If the NIV disagrees with every good translation, it's a smoking gun showing the NIV is wrong. The NIV has a style of changing verses to make them look more agreeable to the casual reader. And, in fact, the NIV is wrong here. The intent Psalm 4:1 isn't to point out God is righteous, but to praise God for imparting righteousness.

 

Hi Smyth, thanks for expressing your view. We differ, but that only means one or both of us are wrong.

Here is the issue, your view is that God imparted "righteousness" to David. My view is that He did not.

Here is the footnote supporting the NIV translation:

So much for the technical grammar support. Second, as I said, is that God is referred to over and over as our righteous God.

 

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, sorry to say, if we disagree, one of us must be wrong. Why should the footnote be trusted, when every good translation disagrees (all with their own Hebrew experts) and the NIV 2011 is produced by people I don't trust?

Greek is a much more detailed and understood language than ancient Hebrew. I consulted Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's translation of the Septuagint, and it uses the phrase, "God of my righteousness". This bypasses the issue of Hebrew syntax.

 

I sure have no idea if the Hebrew grammar assertion in the footnote is valid, but I have not seen anyone address it as error. NIV is not the only translation to go with "My righteous God", it is found in the ISV as well.

Edit: After a search, I found the NIV, NCV, CEB, ICB, and as mentioned before the ISV that the God who does right is in view.

 

That is not necessarily the issue at all.
I notice first of all that my trusty NKJV translates as 'God of my righteousness.'
So does Dale Ralph Davis who is a leading expert on the O.T. and on the Hebrew language. In his recent book 'The way of the Righteous in the Muck of Life' (Christian Focus Books, 2010) which is a commentary on Psalms 1-12, he writes:

'Clearly David knows God's character- he calls Him, 'God of my righteousness,' that is, He is the God who will show me to be in the right, even though I am misjudged and persecuted. We would likely put our experience first but the Psalmist puts God's character first in his prayer.'

In other words, David has faith that God will vindicate him (against Absalom? See the ascription to Psalm 3) in due course despite present circumstances. The phrase does not necessarily suggest imparted righteousness.

 

Would say that the 1984 version of the NIV was a more reliable translation on what God meant for us to know and intended us to understand!
The revision seemed to be accomodating at times too much of a viewpoint that wants to demasculate God and the Bible!

 

The 1984 version reads O my righteous God.

 

You are quite right, the vast majority of translations go with God of my righteousness, Martin. I think they are wrong. Did you come across any articles that addressed the Hebrew grammar argument, and challenged it? Thus far, I have not.

 

I didn't say NIV is the only translation that goes with "My righteous God". I said none of the good translations use that phrase. Not the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV etc. The relative paraphrases (which includes the NIV) and the relatively amateur translations I don't take as reliable. I am also relatively skeptical of any very modern translation (now that faithfulness to Christ is less of a requirement for translation teams). It doesn't help the the ISV uses a satanic symbol, a hexagram, in their logo.

 

Here is a blurb from Barnes:

 

There are many many places where i believe the NIV misses the mark, but sometimes they are spot on. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.

 

I haven't looked for one. I don't consider it that important. Of course God is a righteous God; do you think David might thing He is unrighteous? I only note that Dale Ralph Davis, who is one of the foremost living authorities on Hebrew, doesn't think it worth addressing either. He's still very much alive. If you're that interested, why don't you drop him a line at Woodland Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, Miss.? I think that's where he still is.

 

The 1984 version of the NIV is much better than the 2011, but the '84 still tries to smooth the Bible out to the casual reader. This makes the NIV and the paraphrases poor study tools.

 

Hi Martin, the my expert is more expert than your expert assertion carries little weight. In addition to about a half dozen translations, we have a Hebrew expert, and a well known commentator all agreeing.

 

I'm sorry! I though that was the very thing you were doing and I was just joining in.

'Nuff said, really.
The problem is that you have no knowledge whatsoever of Hebrew and nor have I, so all we can do is wave experts at each other.

 

Mississippi......OMG, a Davis in that place?!? Whats the Tribe coming to?!?