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!
If a am reading this right, the Niv did not do that well!I found this article quite informative. While the analysis rates the ESV higher than my view, and the NASB lower than my view, you have got to hand it to the team for clarity and sound analysis.
http://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Quantitative-Translation-Evaluation-by-GBI.pdf
looks like its the better of the mediating versions!There are some aspects to the CSB I like. I purchased a few just to try it out.
However, I don't believe it is a completely mature translation at the moment and reads a little too clunky for me to use it as a primary reader for my style of reading the Bible - a full book at a time. The translators don't seem to be on the same page as far as style and philosophy. Like the 1996 NLT, I believe they released the translation a bit too early.
I haven't read the 2020 version.
I don't think that translations can be judged quantitatively in any manner other than distribution. Even that is not an absolute judgement. It is just an indicator.
In the absence of a better analysis, I think the team did well.There are some aspects to the CSB I like. I purchased a few just to try it out.
However, I don't believe it is a completely mature translation at the moment and reads a little too clunky for me to use it as a primary reader for my style of reading the Bible - a full book at a time. The translators don't seem to be on the same page as far as style and philosophy. Like the 1996 NLT, I believe they released the translation a bit too early.
I haven't read the 2020 version.
I don't think that translations can be judged quantitatively in any manner other than distribution. Even that is not an absolute judgement. It is just an indicator.
What is funny, the analysis found the same flaws many folks on this board have been denying for years, like translating the same source language word meaning into multiple English words with multiple meanings.If a am reading this right, the Niv did not do that well!
In the Niv?What is funny, the analysis found the same flaws many folks on this board have been denying for years, like translating the same source language word meaning into multiple English words with multiple meanings.
Denial on display. And note the apparent lack of comprehension of word versus word sense (meaning). Adding that to the mix, the NIV would fall further in the ratings.The whole literalness issue is flawed. SNIP
For your unenlightened information, isolated words is what this analysis was based upon. But a sense-based approach would be a better way of addressing the various translations. There is no indication that the NIV would "fall further in the ratings." Your emotional hatred of the translation has blinded your mind.Denial on display. And note the apparent lack of comprehension of word versus word sense (meaning). Adding that to the mix, the NIV would fall further in the ratings.
You have no idea what your are talking about. And you are no mind-reader, (your emotional hatred) you just make up disparagement. The NIV translates the same source language word or phrase meaning into many different English words or phrases. This is just one of the glaring flaws, but of course there are many more, obvious to all but those "blinded" by bias.For your unenlightened information, isolated words is what this analysis was based upon. But a sense-based approach would be a better way of addressing the various translations. There is no indication that the NIV would "fall further in the ratings." Your emotional hatred of the translation has blinded your mind.
Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB to do the analysis. Do you think that had anything to do with the CSB coming out on top?
Ok, so use Formal instead!The whole literalness issue is flawed. It's a fallacy. As was admitted by Wu, "The scores may be different when a sense-based evaluation system is used...We are not able to base our results on word senses rather than words."
Further "Exact lexical equivalence between languages is rare." So some reverse interlinear was devised. It's all so bogus. Even the most form-driven translations can't maintain a word-for-word methodology, so these translations revert to sense-for-sense a lot more often than is generally supposed.
It was said that Brown's Corpus of 1961 was used "representing current English usage." A nearly 60 year old source is used to determine that! There is no indication that it was updated.
Question,was the entire Bible canvassed, or was it just the New Testament? No information was given about that.
In three categories the NIV and CSB were extremely close; .56%, .22% and .45%.
In the Final Scoring the CSB was given 70.3%. The NIV scored 63.6%. The NLT scored 56.6%. So the NIV was closer to the CSB than to the NLT.
The CSB was ranked third in readability and 5th in literalness.
The term 'literal' should be banished from discourse. It is a fictional construct. Read Fee,Strauss, Moo and Mounce for helpful insights.
he is just mad that both the Nas and Esv ranked ahead of the Niv!You have no idea what your are talking about. And you are no mind-reader, (your emotional hatred) you just make up disparagement. The NIV translates the same source language word or phrase meaning into many different English words or phrases. This is just one of the glaring flaws, but of course there are many more, obvious to all but those "blinded" by bias.
What have I told you repeatedly? Do not quote a long post and then give a brief line of reply.Ok, so use Formal instead!
The 'analysis' was biased toward the CSB. This Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB team. And in my original post I gave my other reservations.he is just mad that both the Nas and Esv ranked ahead of the Niv!
Your regurgitated chart that you recycle year after year exemplifies why you have no common sense, no training as a translator, and in fact, follow heterodox beliefs. You are not the kind of person that is an example of rectitude when it comes to anything biblical. Your translation choices fail because of the aforementioned liabilities.This is just one of the glaring flaws, but of course there are many more, obvious to all but those "blinded" by bias.
You are certainly not the kind of individual to read anything correctly. "If a am reading this right..."If a am reading this right, the Niv did not do that well!
If I posted the NIV sometimes offers keen insight, he would find something to nit pick.he is just mad that both the Nas and Esv ranked ahead of the Niv!
Biased, or just giving forth the truth?The 'analysis' was biased toward the CSB. This Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB team. And in my original post I gave my other reservations.
The Csb looks like it will be the mediating translation of choice going forward!You are certainly not the kind of individual to read anything correctly. "If a am reading this right..."