First of all, the ESV probably shouldn't be placed as a mediating translation, should it? The NET, CSB and NIV are amazingly alike and all are in the middle of the traffic between out and out functionally equivalent versions such as the CEV and NCV on one side and the NASBU and LEB on the other side.
-
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!
Face Off Between The KJV And NIV
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
The truth is still though that a formal theory of translation will produce a more suitable version for serious bible studies with!
The Esv main complaint from some has been though that it was not formal enough in its translation policy, as it was not quite formal enough, nor DE enough to warrant the new translation....
"The King James translators, for all their skill, failed to preserve countless features --both formal and semantic --that were present in the original Hebrew and Greek texts. By the same token, their mere use of seventeenth-century English ensured that, at virtually every turn, they would add features absent from the original. Yet this simple reality does not for a moment take anything away from their magnificent achievement. They responsibly interpreted the text, then transposed it to a different historical setting and thereby transmuted it into a form it did not have before. But that hardly means they betrayed the text. On the contrary, such a transformation made it possible for millions to hear and understand its message." (Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections by Moises Silva)
I can't follow you. Rephrase.
My pastor favors the Niv 2011, and he stats that he and many of his fellow pastors, while they like the Esv, think that it was got stuck too much between between a formal/DE translation.
Those who like formal like me will stay with Nas, those who like DE like yourself will stay Niv!
Does he know how much false info you have been spreading about the NIV on the BB and and other forums?
Since you are strongly against it (for all the wrong reasons) why in the world would you choose to be in a church where that is the primary text? It doesn't make any sense.
I see the value of functional equivalence. I know it occurs much more often than you realize in translations like the NASBU.
But the NIV, NET, CSB and some others are mediating versions as I have said many times before --and you said so yourself on a number of occasions.
I am not against the Niv as some here are, as I am just saying that it went way overboard in its Gender renderings, and also, prefer the Formal translation approach better!
And my pastor is not Niv only, just preferred!
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
A quote from Dan Wallace:
So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.
– Source: Daniel B. Wallace
You have made that charge hundreds of times yet never demonstrated anything.
Fine and dandy. Who said otherwise?
But how can you remain in that church with your pastor preaching and teaching from the NIV?
You have made absurd charges such as :
It's driven by a feminist agenda
It seeks to overturn the biblical order in the home
It teaches that women can become pastors
I could go on and on with your nonsense charges.
If you think that way, why remain in that congregation when your pastor is preaching and teaching things that go against what you believe? I don't understand your disconnect.
Have you ever approached your pastor and asked him to use another version? Did you list your concerns that you have posted up and down on the internet for years?
Psalm 44:2
KJV : "How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the peoples, and cast them out."
NIV :"With your hand you drove out the nations and planted our ancestors;
you crushed the peoples and made our ancestors flourish."
There is a huge difference between the two readings.
"Plantedst them" is puzzling since the heahten were just referenced.
There is no mention in the KJV of the ancestors flourishing or spreading them out in a good way.
KJV : "How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the peoples, and cast them out."
NIV :"With your hand you drove out the nations and planted our ancestors;
you crushed the peoples and made our ancestors flourish."
There is a huge difference between the two readings.
"Plantedst them" is puzzling since the heahten were just referenced.
There is no mention in the KJV of the ancestors flourishing or spreading them out in a good way.
1 John 3:1 snippet
KJV “ ...that we should be called the children of God...."
NIV : "...that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!"
Did the KJV revisers delete part of Holy Writ? No, they just did not have access to much more ancient
and accurate MSS.
Charles H. Spurgeon quoted from the 1881 RV for this verse. It's quite likely that no one in his congregation had
the fuller text. But of course it was more accurate, it preached well, and gave the people more confidence in the Lord.
KJV “ ...that we should be called the children of God...."
NIV : "...that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!"
Did the KJV revisers delete part of Holy Writ? No, they just did not have access to much more ancient
and accurate MSS.
Charles H. Spurgeon quoted from the 1881 RV for this verse. It's quite likely that no one in his congregation had
the fuller text. But of course it was more accurate, it preached well, and gave the people more confidence in the Lord.
The Critical Text has 29 supporting manuscripts for this addition, which is certainly more than it usually has. However, there are several hundred that do not have it. And it cannot be proved that the older manuscripts are 'more accurate.' The opposite is quite likely to be the case.
And although Spurgeon welcomed the Revised version when it first came out, he very quickly changed his opinion on it. Details on request.
The "several hundred" MM were of late vintage.
Determining the accuracy of manuscripts is not a matter of counting noses as even M.R. does not consider that to be a compelling factor.
Based on what?
He still used it and valued it. He knew of its weaknesses as well as its strengths. He said it was strong in Greek and weak in English. But he welcomed the improved accuracy of the Alexandrian textual base vs. the TR.
Genesis 36:24
KJV : this was that Anah that found mules in the wilderness
NIV : This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs in the desert
Now you have to admit that the KJV rendering is really funny.
1 Samuel 2:25
KJV : the judge shall judge him
NIV : God may mediate for the offender
The difference is not slight. A mere judge --or God Himself. The KJV could have said Judge. But
as it is --a really poor reading.
KJV : this was that Anah that found mules in the wilderness
NIV : This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs in the desert
Now you have to admit that the KJV rendering is really funny.
1 Samuel 2:25
KJV : the judge shall judge him
NIV : God may mediate for the offender
The difference is not slight. A mere judge --or God Himself. The KJV could have said Judge. But
as it is --a really poor reading.
Yes, I know that. And your point is?
It tells a story, that at some point people who were 1,000 years nearer to the originals than we are came to a settled conclusion about the best text.
Based on the fact that often we don't know whether an older MS is the product of 50 copyings, and a more recent MS the product of only one or two. Or an older MS may have been copied once really badly while a newer has been copied 50 times but really well. The antiquity of the manuscripts is actually not a great guide to accuracy.
[QUOTE
He still used it and valued it. He knew of its weaknesses as well as its strengths. He said it was strong in Greek and weak in English. But he welcomed the improved accuracy of the Alexandrian textual base vs. the TR.[/QUOTE]
As I have said, Spurgeon welcomed the Revised Version when it first appeared, but quickly changed his mind about it.
"In the margin of our Testaments-- I mean of the Authorised Version, which will never be parted with for the so-called Revised Version-- in the margin of the Authorised Version, we read, 'Let us hold fast grace.'" (MTP vol. 28 'Acceptable Service').
"For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorised Version. It is a useful thing to have it for private reference, but I trust it will never be regarded as the standard English Translation" (MTP vol.32 Our own dear Shepherd).
[Referring to the R.V. Old Testament] "I am half afraid that it may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use. I sincerely hope that this may not be the case, for the result would be a decided loss" (ibid).
I also have a long quotation from Spurgeon supporting 'God was manifest in the flesh' in 1 Timothy 3:16.
That's funny. I think the MSS that were made 150 to 400 years after the original are more reliable.
Common sense dictates otherwise.
I see no evidence for the above.
He didn't like its poor English yet he accepted most of its textual decisions.
Long before the RV was released C.H. S. expressed a view that he had for the rest of his life:
"I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed." (In his preface to the 1859 book by Conant The English Bible)
"I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed." (In his preface to the 1859 book by Conant The English Bible)
Acts 2:47
KJV : such as should be saved
NIV : those who were being saved
1 Cor. 1:18
KJV : them that perish foolishness...us which are saved
NIV : those who are perishing...us who are being saved
2 Cor. 2:15
KJV : them that are saved...them that perish
NIV : those who are being saved and those who are perishing
2 Cor. 4:3
KJV : them that are lost
NIV : those who are perishing
Ephesians. 4:22
KJV : which is corrupt
NIV : which is being corrupted
How anyone can claim that the KJV renderings here are more accurate than the readings in the NIV is in dire need of counsel.
KJV : such as should be saved
NIV : those who were being saved
1 Cor. 1:18
KJV : them that perish foolishness...us which are saved
NIV : those who are perishing...us who are being saved
2 Cor. 2:15
KJV : them that are saved...them that perish
NIV : those who are being saved and those who are perishing
2 Cor. 4:3
KJV : them that are lost
NIV : those who are perishing
Ephesians. 4:22
KJV : which is corrupt
NIV : which is being corrupted
How anyone can claim that the KJV renderings here are more accurate than the readings in the NIV is in dire need of counsel.
You are obviously unaware of the quality of the so-called "oldest and best" manuscripts.
"Common sense" is not all that common around here.
Nope. Argued strongly against "Os" vice "Theos."
Again, not understanding the non-temporal nature of the Greek participle has led you into error.
- Status