Rippon thinks that the Esv is about same as Niv, andtha they really overplayed being more literal version! He thinks that he Niv also did a better job in transalation...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Standard Bible 2017
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
- Status
You're right! I hate when that happens.
The CSB has now come much closer to the NIV with their changes -- for the better.
It is now the time for the ESV to move in that direction. They have already acknowedged in their footnotes that the NIV renderings in at least 151 occasions would be acceptable. They have to simply adopt the alternative in the foonotes and put it in the text. That's just for starters. They also have to update the English in the ESV --the grammar is poor in many places.
But to do that would require a lot of humbling for certain ESV personages. They have made many false charges against the NIV and sought to bring it down so that the ESV would get the lion's share of the market. For them to sudenly change course and do what the CSB has done would be terribly embarrassing for them. Of course it would be the right thing to do, but they would lose face in the process.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say. The NIV is gaining a number of imitators.
Interesting observation, since the text of the new Holman has just been released. Upon what do you base that?
What, exactly, are the 151 occasions? I assume a vast majority is "brothers and sisters" for "brothers." I have no problem with the ESV footnote there. If you read the ESV, you know what's going on.
So you say. Yes, sometimes it can be a bit awkward. But I can't think that the NIV is the be all-end all for idiom.
I don't want the ESV to do what the Holman has done (assuming we know what that is). I want the ESV to be what what the translators promised: an intelligible, essentially literal translation. The ESV should be a competitor to the NASB, not the Holman or the NIV. The ESV translators should smooth out their awkward passages, not try to be the NIV or Holman.
I base it upon the links provided in posts 1 and 53. In addition my reading of some sample verses in Ps.,Ro. and Philippians. I also read through the entirety of Mark.
[quote
What, exactly, are the 151 occasions? I assume a vast majority is "brothers and sisters" for "brothers."
I have no problem with the ESV footnote there. If you read the ESV, you know what's going on.
[/quote]
I have no problem with the repetiitious foonote either. But sooner or later it will be spelled out in the actual text instead of as a mere alternative.
I never so much as hinted at that. There are other versions which use English in a much more colloquial style than does the NIV.
They cannot live up to what their preface demands --only partially. And this "essentiallly literal business" business needs to be discarded. It's a canard.
The NIV has had the largest market share for several decades now. The ESV needs to position itself as a viable alternative to the NIV --not the NASB which isn not nearly as popular.
So you say. We shall see.[/quote]
They should stay the course, as prefer their better accuracy in exchange for at times more wooden language!
I have no problem with the repetiitious foonote either. But sooner or later it will be spelled out in the actual text instead of as a mere alternative.
I never so much as hinted at that. There are other versions which use English in a much more colloquial style than does the NIV.
They cannot live up to what their preface demands --only partially. And this "essentiallly literal business" business needs to be discarded. It's a canard.
The NIV has had the largest market share for several decades now. The ESV needs to position itself as a viable alternative to the NIV --not the NASB which isn not nearly as popular.
So you say. We shall see.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Is most popular version mean best in accuracy, or is it due to readability factor?
I had said that the NIV has had the largest market share of any Bible translation. It's popular because it's an all-round version. It does many things well. As I had said before --there are a number of translations that are easier to read. So that's not a compelling reason. It's just that the NIV hits a lot of selling points that a Bible reader wants.
Tradtion drives a ton of the NIV sales. Just like the KJV. They use the NIV because that was what they have always used. People don't like to change translations. Most people don't read their Bible enough to know the NIV has changed since it first came out. So the gender issue is irrelevant ro them....they don't even know it exists. Even if one believes the gender inclusive language to be in error, with all the other changes made, they should acknowledge it is a more accurate translation than the NIV84.
I have no issue with people saying it went to far in the inclusive language. My problems lies in the dozen preachers, who have laid aside the gender inclusive NIV out of disappointment. Just to start preaching from the NLT. Which proves they have no idea what the issue is about. They just stopped using the NIV due to the SBC resolution without truly understand it.
I do look forward to the CSB. I do not trust secular companies with the Bible. They will start to cave under the pressure of the LGBT community and other groups. They may not alter existing translations to satisfy them, but they will start promting alternative transaltions. Holman and Crossway, will be shut down, before they alter Scripture to pacify social interest groups.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
That is very good posting onthi issue, asthere has to b abiliy to resit PC pressure to conform bible to modern day thinking, espcially on areas suc as roles of women/men and sexualaity!
And do think the 2011 Niv was a better transalation than 1984 overall, but that inclusive gender stuff just takes it off my versions to use list!
You're posting junk...again.
You're allowed to have your preferences. But your emotions are clouding your grey matter.
Here's their page on the independent Global Bible Initiative giving the CSB the best score when comparing literalness and readibility. It also links the actual report in the "more info" box. GBI used a computer analysis to get their scores. Interesting stuff to say the least.
The only weird thing is that the computer analysis gave the ESV a slightly more literal score than the NASB. Maybe it's because the ESV is closer to the NA28 than the NASB like in Jude 5 where they have Jesus rather than Lord.
Edit: forgot to link the page lol: http://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
The only weird thing is that the computer analysis gave the ESV a slightly more literal score than the NASB. Maybe it's because the ESV is closer to the NA28 than the NASB like in Jude 5 where they have Jesus rather than Lord.
Edit: forgot to link the page lol: http://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
I would say you are right about the NA28 tipping the score in the ESV's favor. NA26 or 27, it would have probably been NASB.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The CEV was put to the left of the LB (who has used that in the last quarter century?). No, it belongs to the left of the NLT. Perhaps the chartmaker(s) got it confusued with the CEV.
The NRSV should be to the left of the NRSV.
The NLT belongs above the line (in the bottom chart). Though it is a revision (as is the NIV) --it is a translation from the original languages.
Global Bible Initiative? independent? Gives Holman's CSB the best score? Hmmm...
A few clicks finds this 'GBI' and Holman are in fact partners:
http://www.globalbibleinitiative.org >>> http://www.chinesestandardbible.com >>> ABOUT CSB >>> ABOUT US
http://www.lifeway.com/Article/HCSB-translation-philosophy-impacts-Chinese-translation
Real "independent" there, huh?:
Last edited:
- Status