Moving on from the NIV

[Rippon2]

The 1984 Niv better then the 2011 revision!

You are in error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If it helps, and you and I can have this conversation together, I was skeptical about the ESV for a long time. I was an NASB guy. But when I finally looked into it seriously, well, you know my position now.

Thanks for the kind offer, David, but actually I try not to get too het up about translations except in the area of Gender neutrality, which I feel is becoming an increasingly important issue.
I'm not suggesting that the ESV is a terrible translation; I just haven't felt that it's the big improvement on the NIV that I hoped it would be. For example, I gave the sermon last Lord's day on our text for the year - Psalms 37:4. The ESV, like the NIV, misses out the word 'also' which IMO should be there to connect verse 4 to verse 3. There is no delighting in the Lord if we are not also trusting in Him. Likewise, in Isaiah 12:3, it omits the connecting word ('so' or 'therefore') that joins verse 3 to verses 1 & 2. The NIV does this all the time, and I don't find it the least bit helpful.

 

[Reformed]

You are in error.

Brother, who is to say what "better" is? I prefer the 1977 version of the New American Standard. The most recent updates, not so much. After all is said and done in the ongoing saga of "Translation Wars", it ultimately comes down to preference when comparing the major accepted translations.

 

[Rippon2]

Brother, who is to say what "better" is? I prefer the 1977 version of the New American Standard. The most recent updates, not so much. After all is said and done in the ongoing saga of "Translation Wars", it ultimately comes down to preference when comparing the major accepted translations.

I have introduced a bevy of threads demonstrating the superiority of the 2011 edition vs. the 1984 version. To dismiss the former
without regard to its improvements shows a deterioration of memory or maybe sloth.

 

[Reformed]

I have introduced a bevy of threads demonstrating the superiority of the 2011 edition vs. the 1984 version. To dismiss the former
without regard to its improvements shows a deterioration of memory or maybe sloth.

Brother, that is a rather harsh thing to say. You may have a strong opinion on the updated New International Version but it may be a hill many are not willing to die on. Extend charity to the brother who is of a different mindset.

 

[Reformed1689]

Thanks for the kind offer, David, but actually I try not to get too het up about translations except in the area of Gender neutrality, which I feel is becoming an increasingly important issue.
I'm not suggesting that the ESV is a terrible translation; I just haven't felt that it's the big improvement on the NIV that I hoped it would be. For example, I gave the sermon last Lord's day on our text for the year - Psalms 37:4. The ESV, like the NIV, misses out the word 'also' which IMO should be there to connect verse 4 to verse 3. There is no delighting in the Lord if we are not also trusting in Him. Likewise, in Isaiah 12:3, it omits the connecting word ('so' or 'therefore') that joins verse 3 to verses 1 & 2. The NIV does this all the time, and I don't find it the least bit helpful.

Interesting, I don't actually see that as confusing or diminishing the verses.

 

[alexander284]

I guess you are not going to tell me how many verses it would take to cause you to consider that the ESV is not actually a formal equivalence version.

My answer is a dozen or more.

Ah. Thank you for bringing up the original question, again!

I trust your judgment on this matter. I think that's an outstanding question.

I think a dozen or more examples is quite reasonable.

Therefore, please provide us with a dozen or more examples.

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, who is to say what "better" is? I prefer the 1977 version of the New American Standard. The most recent updates, not so much. After all is said and done in the ongoing saga of "Translation Wars", it ultimately comes down to preference when comparing the major accepted translations.

Our brother rippon is almost like an NIVO!

 

[Van]

Ah. Thank you for bringing up the original question, again!
I trust your judgment on this matter. I think that's an outstanding question.
I think a dozen or more examples is quite reasonable.
Therefore, please provide us with a dozen or more examples.

Thanks for responding! Many Calvinist leaning posters avoid taking a position, they just ask questions, then ridicule the answers.

Did you accept Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 1:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5 and Revelation 13:8 as mistranslations of the text? If so then I will present 7 more!

 

[Rippon2]

Our brother rippon is almost like an NIVO!

Y-1 is obdurate.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y-1 is obdurate.

ok, so you are NIVP then!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Interesting, I don't actually see that as confusing or diminishing the verses.

I think there are two main points here:
Firstly, I don't think we have the right to chop out certain words from the Bible. The gars and the ouns are there through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and I don't think it is for Don Carson or anyone else to decide that they're unnecessary.

Secondly, as I wrote earlier, in Psalm 37:4, the 'also' tells us that we don't delight in the Lord in a vacuum; that if we are not trusting i the Lord and 'feeding on His faithfulness,' we shall not delight ourselves in Him. When I preached on this verse, I felt it was important to point this out.

I don't want to overstate this; I'm not saying that the NIV and ESV are ungodly abominations or anything like that. But I want a Bible that is as near to the original as is consistent with readability. Although I am aware of some failings in the NKJV and am hoping for a revision in due course, I find it very satisfactory. If I were not of the opinion that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be nearer to the original than the Critical Text, I would use the NASB, to which I refer on occasion.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think there are two main points here:
Firstly, I don't think we have the right to chop out certain words from the Bible. The gars and the ouns are there through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and I don't think it is for Don Carson or anyone else to decide that they're unnecessary.

Secondly, as I wrote earlier, in Psalm 37:4, the 'also' tells us that we don't delight in the Lord in a vacuum; that if we are not trusting i the Lord and 'feeding on His faithfulness,' we shall not delight ourselves in Him. When I preached on this verse, I felt it was important to point this out.

I don't want to overstate this; I'm not saying that the NIV and ESV are ungodly abominations or anything like that. But I want a Bible that is as near to the original as is consistent with readability. Although I am aware of some failings in the NKJV and am hoping for a revision in due course, I find it very satisfactory. If I were not of the opinion that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be nearer to the original than the Critical Text, I would use the NASB, to which I refer on occasion.

Would think a good way would be to use both Nas/Nkjv!

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't want to overstate this; I'm not saying that the NIV and ESV are ungodly abominations or anything like that. But I want a Bible that is as near to the original as is consistent with readability. Although I am aware of some failings in the NKJV and am hoping for a revision in due course, I find it very satisfactory. If I were not of the opinion that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be nearer to the original than the Critical Text, I would use the NASB, to which I refer on occasion.

I guess that is my point, the also is implied in my opinion.

 

[rlvaughn]

An interesting site that compares the NIV 2011 to previous editions:
NIV2011 comparison with NIV1984 and TNIV
The compiler writes:

• Compared to the NIV1984: 19030 verses (61.1%) are the same, and 12056 verses (38.8%) differ.
• Compared to the TNIV: 28595 verses (91.9%) are the same, and 2491 verses (8.0%) differ.

To actually see the degree of difference between the revisions you should check where they differ, as in these statistics I mark them as being different even if only the punctuation has changed.

 

[Yeshua1]

An interesting site that compares the NIV 2011 to previous editions:
NIV2011 comparison with NIV1984 and TNIV
The compiler writes:

that supports the notion that the Niv 2011 really went overboard into Inclusive gender renderings as compared to 1984 Niv...

 

[Rippon2]

that supports the notion that the Niv 2011 really went overboard into Inclusive gender renderings as compared to 1984 Niv...

Sigh, it does no such thing. I have posted threads galore about the 2011 NIV vs, the TNIV. You can't be that forgetful. But for you it's a convenience to say you forgot --even when you participated in my threads on the subject.

 

[Rippon2]

that supports the notion that the Niv 2011 really went overboard into Inclusive gender renderings as compared to 1984 Niv...

And did you happen to note in that razor sharp mind of yours, that when comparing the 1984 NIV to the 2011 edition even punctuation was listed as a difference? Did you catch that fact?

 

[rlvaughn]

Within Slowley's detailed comparisons, this page is more relevant to the gender language discussion.

The list of word counts / word changes relevant to the gender language debate

This page lists words of particular interest to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the NIV1984, TNIV, and NIV2011, showing the word counts, and the number of verses where those words have been added or removed. Where the number is also a link you can click on that link to get the details of those changes.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sigh, it does no such thing. I have posted threads galore about the 2011 NIV vs, the TNIV. You can't be that forgetful. But for you it's a convenience to say you forgot --even when you participated in my threads on the subject.

The 2005 Tniv was denounced from its release as being agenda driven faulty translation, and too bad the Niv 2011 decided to keep majority of its text!