Moving on from the NIV

[Van]

My arguments are correct, but the rebuttals indicate the inability to grasp the arguments.

Your premise, that the context of 2 Corinthians 12:20 points to "hostilities" rather than "selfish ambitions" lacks support. How many versions go with hostilities versus how many with selfish ambitions? According my search, only one version (ESV) has hostilities, whereas 10 have selfish ambitions or selfishness, or selfish.

 

[Van]

Let me be clear; like you, I don't know Hebrew at all. However, my understanding is that the word rendered 'desire' here does not mean 'sexual desire;' rather it means ambitious 'desire.' So the woman's desire is for her husband's position of authority. I think that is what the ESV is trying to get at. Whether or not the way it has done it is ideal, it may be better than the other translations you list.

Your argument here says the literal meaning is desire for your husband, but the dynamic equivalence is contrary to your husband.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Interesting, because most charts that I have seen actually rank ESV as more literal than both NKJV and KJV>

Well, I have to admit that most conservative and Reformed people seem very happy with the ESV. I spent a small amount of time looking at it because my church, which currently uses the NIV 1984 will probably move on from it soon and I don't want the new NIV because of its gender-neutral stance. When I looked at the ESV I wasn't all that impressed, but I don't have any notes on my reasons why. Maybe I'll have another look.
I use the NKJV at home and much prefer that, but my Pastor thinks it will be too difficult for the congregation. I'm not going to make a issue over it, so I expect we shall end up with the ESV whatever I think about it. Perhaps I shall come to love it.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no good reason why any translation should translate a word in exactly the same way every time it occurs. The English language has a vocabulary that is around double the size of Koine Greek. Therefore it must be the case that every Greek word is likely to have two or more English words that might be used to translate it. The context will usually indicate the best word to use.
However, when Van quotes Eph 1:5,
'He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will' (ESV),
he is right that this is not a great translation. The Greek word is eudokia. It comes fro two words, eu, meaning 'well,' and dokeo, 'to seem.' Therefore eudokia means 'that which seems good' or 'good pleasure.'

That is the reason why there can be and are at times some small differences between translations, as they are both accurate, just choosing a different English word for the Greek!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My arguments are correct, but the rebuttals indicate the inability to grasp the arguments.

Your premise, that the context of 2 Corinthians 12:20 points to "hostilities" rather than "selfish ambitions" lacks support. How many versions go with hostilities versus how many with selfish ambitions? According my search, only one version (ESV) has hostilities, whereas 10 have selfish ambitions or selfishness, or selfish.

That's a very bad way of assessing the merits of translations.

 

[Reformed1689]

You premise, that the context of 2 Corinthians 12:20 points to "hostilities" rather than "selfish ambitions" lacks support.

The word is selfish ambitions implying rivalry which means hostilities and strife both fit in this context.

ccording my search, only one version (ESV) has hostilities, whereas 10 have selfish ambitions or selfishness, or selfish.

As far as versions.

NKJV: Strife
NIV: Factions
LEB: Strife
NRSV: Selfishness
KJV: Strifes
NLT: Selfishness
NASB: Disputes

So not really sure where @Van is correct in saying ESV has it one way and all other translations say selfish or some variation of that. It's completely bogus.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a very bad way of assessing the merits of translations.

van bases his judgments upon translations if they agree or disagree with his own theology, especially in regards to Calvinism!

 

[Reformed1689]

Well, I have to admit that most conservative and Reformed people seem very happy with the ESV. I spent a small amount of time looking at it because my church, which currently uses the NIV 1984 will probably move on from it soon and I don't want the new NIV because of its gender-neutral stance. When I looked at the ESV I wasn't all that impressed, but I don't have any notes on my reasons why. Maybe I'll have another look.
I use the NKJV at home and much prefer that, but my Pastor thinks it will be too difficult for the congregation. I'm not going to make a issue over it, so I expect we shall end up with the ESV whatever I think about it. Perhaps I shall come to love it.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

The word is selfish ambitions implying rivalry which means hostilities and strife both fit in this context.



As far as versions.

NKJV: Strife
NIV: Factions
LEB: Strife
NRSV: Selfishness
KJV: Strifes
NLT: Selfishness
NASB: Disputes

So not really sure where @Van is correct in saying ESV has it one way and all other translations say selfish or some variation of that. It's completely bogus.

Ironic that he accuses we Calvinists of peddling bogus theology, but what about his own?

 

[Van]

That's a very bad way of assessing the merits of translations.

I thought it showed your view was merit-less.

Your premise, that the context of 2 Corinthians 12:20 points to "hostilities" rather than "selfish ambitions" lacks support. How many versions go with hostilities versus how many with selfish ambitions? According my search, only one version (ESV) has hostilities, whereas 10 have selfish ambitions or selfishness, or selfish.

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought it showed your view was merit-less.

I think that you meant your view was that!

 

[Van]

The ESV misses the mark in many areas.
1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.
2) Some of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.
3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and James 2:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.

Many have said, "The more you use the ESV, the more you grow to dislike it."

 

[Reformed1689]

1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.

That's your opinion. The question is, why? Why should it have been based on the NRSV when the NRSV was ALSO based on the RSV?

2) Some of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.

You mean things that YOU think are a mistake. Do you know many people consider the NRSV to be quite liberal?

3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and James 2:5) seem to be agenda driven.

These are not mistranslations and you have yet to show that they are. Nothing to see here.

4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.

What is this even talking about? Are you still griping about the lack of italics?

Many have said, "The more you use the ESV, the more you grow to dislike it."

And many have said the opposite. So first, what is your citation for this, and second, what does this prove?

 

[Yeshua1]

The ESV misses the mark in many areas.
1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.
2) Some of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.
3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and James 2:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.

Many have said, "The more you use the ESV, the more you grow to dislike it."

Nrsv would be a liberal version of the Niv 2011, no way that would make for a good translation! Wonder why mainly liberal mainstream churches like it, while many conservative and solid stand for esv instead?

 

[McCree79]

how so? As many conservatives have blasted it for way too much Inclusive renderings, and saw the 1984 niv as just fine In that regard!

Well, the way too inclusive language is about 5 verses. So let's grant that the NIV 2011 botches 5 verses on gender language. Does that make it a bad translation? I would say no. Romans 16:7 is probably the worst, but that doesn't disqualify it has a viable translation. Overall the NIV2011 is more centered between formal and function, than the NIV84 which is much closer to functional equivalence. Read through the Gospel of Matthew (3:1, 4:15, 11:5, 25:6 are a few I have highlighted) and John( the repeated use of faith as mentioned earlier) and comparing to that greek it becomes very evident. Heck, you could read the NIV84 Keyword Study Bible and realize the NIV 84 has missed the meaning in several places. That was the Bible I was using when I realized somthing was off.

99% of the NIV2011 is solid. I don't recommend it has a primary study Bible because I believe there is better available. But I certainly don't reject its value or scorn those who use it. Even with its flaws it still is better quality than the 84 editionand many other translations.

In regards to Romans 16:7, they list in the footnote what I believe is the correct translation. And the NIV "Zondervan" study Bible let's you know that Junia does not hold the office of apostle" However, the text should certainly be changed to reflect what is found in the footnote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


****and it has been pointed out that Leon Morris and J.A. Mother and other has pointed out numerous times the NIV84 was not as accurate as it should have been. When studying Matthew with Morris commentary, I do not recall one time where he suggested the 84 was off, in which the 2011 didn't not fix the reading to reflect Morris' opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, the way too inclusive language is about 5 verses. So let's grant that the NIV 2011 botches 5 verses on gender language. Does that make it a bad translation? I would say no. Romans 16:7 is probably the worst, but that doesn't disqualify it has a viable translation. Overall the NIV2011 is more centered between formal and function, than the NIV84 which is much closer to functional equivalence. Read through the Gospel of Matthew (3:1, 4:15, 11:5, 25:6 are a few I have highlighted) and John( the repeated use of faith as mentioned earlier) and comparing to that greek it becomes very evident. Heck, you could read the NIV84 Keyword Study Bible and realize the NIV 84 has missed the meaning in several places. That was the Bible I was using when I realized somthing was off.

99% of the NIV2011 is solid. I don't recommend it has a primary study Bible because I believe there is better available. But I certainly don't reject its value or scorn those who use it. Even with its flaws it still is better quality than the 84 editionand many other translations.

In regards to Romans 16:7, they list in the footnote what I believe is the correct translation. And the NIV "Zondervan" study Bible let's you know that Junia does not hold the office of apostle" However, the text should certainly be changed to reflect what is found in the footnote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Why does it seem to be more dynamic and less formal then the 1984 though?

 

[Van]

Moving from the NIV to a more accurate version would be to the CSB or NASB. The WEB, NET, NKJV all provide excellent comparison versions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Moving from the NIV to a more accurate version would be to the CSB or NASB. The WEB, NET, NKJV all provide excellent comparison versions.

Net good for its notes, not so much the translation!

 

[Van]

Net good for its notes, not so much the translation!

Why not provide an example? Try John 6:29

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not provide an example? Try John 6:29

www.bible-researcher.com › English Versions › 21st Century
The NET Bible - Bible Research
www.bible-researcher.com › English Versions › 21st Century