If You or Your Church Switched from NIV to ESV....Why?

[Rippon]

no, for I am not a "niv hater",

You know,for you to say that now is rather silly. You have said some quite slanderous things about the translation (and consequently its translators) in the past. That's why I had asked you why you are involved with a church which uses it. It's inconsistent of you to say the least.

just one that holds that while it is the word of God to us in English,

I would never say that it is the Word of God to us in English. There are many translations of the Word of God in the English language.

it is NOT as accurate to the original language texts as ay the Nasb/Nkjv would be,

Not as accurate based upon what criteria? You haven't proven that you know what the words 'accuracy' and 'literal' mean.

And why do you place the NKJV in the same category as the NASB? Doesn't the base text of the TR mitigate against accuracy?

he would see things as you do, as he prefers theNiv, and likes the Nasb, just to 'wooden and literal" for him,

I have never said that the NASBU is wooden. The pre-95 certainly was though. So your pastor thinks the NASB is too literal and yet you think it is superior to the NIV,HCSB and ESV. Funny thing that you remain in a church body where the pastor disagrees with you about a fundamental belief you have.

as he sees esv as a smoother version to use, compared to Nasb...

LOL! The ESV cannot be considered 'smooth' except in comparison to an interlinear and the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

You know,for you to say that now is rather silly. You have said some quite slanderous things about the translation (and consequently its translators) in the past. That's why I had asked you why you are involved with a church which uses it. It's inconsistent of you to say the least.

was it is "slanderous' to state that the NIV translators had an agenda to udate the version to reflect more of current culture views regarding men/women in the bible? To be more into 'correct gendar bias in bible" when it really did not exist to correct?
Also, are you saying they do NOT have in mind to have a theory of being note as literal/formal as say Nasb team was in translating the original language texts into english?

I would never say that it is the Word of God to us in English. There are many translations of the Word of God in the English language.

Agreed, its just as much the Word to us as say Kjv/Nasb/esv etc!

Not as accurate based upon what criteria? You haven't proven that you know what the words 'accuracy' and 'literal' mean.

literal/formal as translating from greek/Hebrew into English what was actually written, and try to avoid as much commenatary/reading into it as possible!

And why do you place the NKJV in the same category as the NASB? Doesn't the base text of the TR mitigate against accuracy?

believe that despite having an inferior Greek base text,, their theory of translation allows them to producre still a quite accurate and literal version!

I have never said that the NASBU is wooden. The pre-95 certainly was though. So your pastor thinks the NASB is too literal and yet you think it is superior to the NIV,HCSB and ESV. Funny thing that you remain in a church body where the pastor disagrees with you about a fundamental belief you have.

yes, I do hold that the 1977 version was superior for study use than 1995 revision, and either version superior for doing "serious studies" from, but all those other versions listed are good to use also!

And why can't we disagree on which is to be the preferred bible version? thatis NOT an esential of the faith, no need to seperate/divide over that, as BOTH affirm the essential truths of the faith!

LOL! The ESV cannot be considered 'smooth' except in comparison to an interlinear and the KJV.

Well, it does seem easier to read then my 1977 nasb is!

 

[Rippon]

All Bible versions have to do a lot of restructuring. Sometimes one word in the original would have to be translated with a sentence or more. All sorts of variations come about. There is no one-to-one correspondence. The supposed "gulf" between the ESV and NIV regarding translational methodology is scant --regardless of ESV press reports and its Preface. In the actual translations themselves there are more commonalities than differences. My main complaint through the years here has been about the stilted and unnatural language of the ESV. However,it's philosophy and that of the NIV are nearly the same in the two texts.

Within the book The Challenge of Bible Translation Moises Silva authored chapter one : Are Translators Traitors? some Personal Reflections.

"The preface to the recently released English Standard Version describes its philosophy of translation as 'essentially literal' and as 'word-for-word' (over against the thought-for-thought approach of some modern Bible versions). Literalness in translation in translation,howver, is something of an illusion, and although the preface goes on to qualify these claims...the unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV. Here is a fairly word-for-word rendering of Hebrews 7:20-22 (but respecting the word order required by English):

And according to which [= inasmuch as it was] not without an oath --for on the one hand the ones having become priests are without an oath, but he with an oath through the one saying to him, "The Lord swore and will not regret: 'You are a priest forever' " --according to so much Jesus became a guarantee of a better covenant.

Some versions (e.g., the NASB), while making this complex sentence a bit more understandable, retain the basic structure of the original. The ESV, however, renders it this way:

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.' " This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (p.40)

"By (1) breaking up one long sentence into three, then (2) translating a binary comparative structure (with a long parenthesis in the middle) into a set of independent clauses, and finally (3) adding quite a few items absent from the Greek ('it was,' 'formerly,' 'were made such,' 'was made,' 'This makes'), the ESV successfully clarifies the statement to modern readers and makes its meaning clear to them. But to call such a rendering literal (let alone word-for-word) is a fantasy. (p.40)