NIV or ESV?

[Rippon]

Perhaps, like car makers planned obsolesce, they plan on slowly introducing more and more mistranslations in future versions, so this first ESV may be like a Trojan horse, to gain acceptance, then future revisions will launch the attack on truth. Same MO as the NIV and its 2011 update.

You are off your ever lovin' rocker Van. And you are uninformed to boot. "This first ESV" demonstrates your unwillingness to check facts before posting. The ESV was first published in 2001. It has gone through several mild updates --the last one being in April of 2011.

You specialize in lies Van. You say completely false things on purpose to inflame others. The translators of the ESV and NIV are not launching an "attack on the truth." Why do you say such absurdly sinful statements? You are out to lunch --big time.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are confused. The terms dynamic and functionally equivalent mean the same thing. The former was changed by the author of the theory --Eugene Nida, because of folks misunderstanding the term dynamic equivalency.

L. Ryken is a major spokesperson for the ESV and chief thrasher of the NIV. He calls it mildly dynamic.

When you sort out the fact that the two terms refer to the same thing, then you can reword your post and clarify what in the world you are trying to convey because as it is you are contradicting yourself.

:laugh: you are right. My eyes saw one thing, my brain another. I saw and used functionally while thinking formal.

I take it that you prefer dynamic or functionally over formal, and I can certainly see how they would be easier to read and clearer to the translators intent...I do not understand, however, how it could be "clearer" to the original author's intent or keep from obscuring the original text. But to make sure that we are actually discussing the same thing...I am taking it that you prefer functionally/dynamic equivalency over formal (you would prefer the translator to tell the audience what the original text means in plain and easy to understand words/phrases even if this means using more contemporary/common language that approximate a meaning when more precise but difficult English words are available).

To illustrate, look at my objection to the NIV translating “sanctifying” as “set apart.” I think that sanctify carries a deeper meaning and the NIV took a short cut (leaving out the holy aspect) for readability. You are fine because it is a good thing to “revere” Christ in our heart. But sanctify does not mean merely to "set apart" or to "revere." You state it clearly, and I understand exactly what you mean by "revere Christ in our hearts." But this is not what Scripture actually says in the verse we are dealing with. You and I differ on what a translation should be. I don't "hate" the NIV, nor do I object to it's use. It is not my preference and I disagree on its philosophy of translation. You think it the best thing since sliced bread. That's fine with me - love and use your NIV (with a good commentary, of course).

 

[Van]

You are off your ever lovin' rocker Van. And you are uninformed to boot. "This first ESV" demonstrates your unwillingness to check facts before posting. The ESV was first published in 2001. It has gone through several mild updates --the last one being in April of 2011.

You specialize in lies Van. You say completely false things on purpose to inflame others. The translators of the ESV and NIV are not launching an "attack on the truth." Why do you say such absurdly sinful statements? You are out to lunch --big time.

Yet another personal attack by the fount of disinformation. Yet no ol 76 will post that Rippon should tone it down. Nope.

1) My copy of the ESV was copyrighted in 2001.

2) Both the NIV and ESV did attack the truth when they translated "from" as before.

3) Therefore this post by the fount of disinformation once again slanders me, and not one Calvinist will object. Go figure.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic, lets consider Philippians 4:13. Most translations say "I can do all things (or everything) but the NIV says "I can do all this" limiting the scope to the just mentioned accomplishments. If we look at the text, we find the Greek word "pas" which means all. So, if it was translated, I can do all, it would leave to the reader to decide whether the all was limited to the prior accomplishments or had a broader scope, akin with Colossians 1:11. So it would appear the truth is broader than just the mentioned accomplishments, but not so broad as to include leaping a tall building in a single bound.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Tone it done, Rippon. ## There, I did it. How do I become a Mod here? I'd love to do it.

 

[Rippon]

I take it that you prefer dynamic or functionally over formal,

Both formal and functional translations have their place. As I have said before --I prefer mediating versions otherwise known as modified literal. When it comes to functionally equivalent I like the more moderately inclined idiomatic ones.

I don't "hate" the NIV, nor do I object to it's use. It is not my preference and I disagree on its philosophy of translation.

Remember that certain New Testament scholars think the NIV and ESV operate on the same philosophy of translation.

You think it the best thing since sliced bread.

Now that remark doesn't speak well of you. Just review my comments on the NIV in this thread. (Not to mention all the other threads I have made concerning the TNIV and 2011 NIV). Review post #99 where I stated my reasons for why I prefer the NIV. I have never said it was without flaws. I just think it covers all the bases translationally. Some other versions come out ahead in some areas --but all in all --even with its weaknesses, the NIV leads the pack. I still like a number of translations that I itemized in post 99 -and refer to them a lot. I have devoted many threads to other versions. By the way, I had forgotten to mention the Weymouth translation. It's a fine one.

That's fine with me - love and use your NIV (with a good commentary, of course).

All translations should be used in conjunction withgood commentaries and good sermons. Dr. DMLJ's messages are really masterpieces and give a great deal of insight with as much or sometimes more than a quality commentary.

 

[Rippon]

1) My copy of the ESV was copyrighted in 2001.

So that is Van's way of saying he was wrong --he is acknowledging that the ESV has gone through several mild updates. "This first ESV" was a mistake on his part. He didn't know any better. The copy he has was the only one he knew about.

2) Both the NIV and ESV did attack the truth when they translated "from" as before.

You have your pet gripes which don't add up to a hill of beans with anyone else. The NIV and ESV do not "attack the truth" as you with dreaded monotony drone on in post after post.

 

[preacher4truth]

Tone it done, Rippon. ## There, I did it. How do I become a Mod here? I'd love to do it.

First you have to look past severe doctrinal errors among the anti-cal and arminian camps, then you must combat the truth among the DoGs/Cal camps against Biblical evidence that suggests otherwise, and then, to top it off, you have to have a 'mod' theme song. :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

So that is Van's way of saying he was wrong --he is acknowledging that the ESV has gone through several mild updates. "This first ESV" was a mistake on his part. He didn't know any better. The copy he has was the only one he knew about.

You have your pet gripes which don't add up to a hill of beans with anyone else. The NIV and ESV do not "attack the truth" as you with dreaded monotony drone on in post after post.

All Van meant was that he only held a bachelors in false teaching in 2001 which was when the ESV came about. He's been working on his doctorate on the same since. :thumbs:

 

[JonC]

Now that remark doesn't speak well of you.

I didn’t mean the comment as it came off.

The difference between you and I on this thread seems (IMHO) that you prefer “mediating versions” (or “modified literal”) while I prefer a more literal translation. While some consider the NIV and ESV to operate on similar principles, keep in mind that some also define mediated as dynamic equivalent. While I can see the ESV and NIV operating on similar principles, where the NIV employs those principles, I think the philosophy is different (the ESV seeking a close literal interpretation while maintaining the literary devises from the original and the NIV seeking a close literal interpretation while employing a more contemporary reading/understanding of the text). I do think that the NIV achieved the balance that it desired.

When I study I typically use four translations: the NASB, an interlinear, the ESV and sometimes the NIV. I do not understand the difficulty some have understanding the NASB (someone here said you needed a commentary to understand the translation, that remark was silly)…but I do find it difficult to read aloud- I get tongue tied with some of the word ordering. For me, the ESV is that “middle ground.”

The important thing is not always the translation that one uses, but that one realizes the philosophy behind the translation and takes the time and effort to study Scripture.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

First you have to look past severe doctrinal errors among the anti-cal and arminian camps, then you must combat the truth among the DoGs/Cal camps against Biblical evidence that suggests otherwise, and then, to top it off, you have to have a 'mod' theme song. :thumbsup:

Like Maude, I have a moustache.

 

[Van]

So that is Van's way of saying he was wrong --he is acknowledging that the ESV has gone through several mild updates. "This first ESV" was a mistake on his part. He didn't know any better. The copy he has was the only one he knew about.

No mistake, the 2001 ESV is the first ESV.

How many updates have been made to the ESV beside the April 2011 update of less than 500 words? No answer will be forthcoming.

Here is a link to the 2011 update: http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv2011changes.pdf

I just briefly looked at the list, and almost all of them improved the accuracy of the ESV. But Revelation 13:8, and James 2:5 were not on the list so its still worthless as a study bible.

 

[Rippon]

No mistake, the 2001 ESV is the first ESV.

Is that supposed to be news? Who has said otherwise?

I just briefly looked at the list, and almost all of them improved the accuracy of the ESV. But Revelation 13:8, and James 2:5 were not on the list so its still worthless as a study bible.

"Almost all of them improved the accuracy of the ESV" comes out of one side of your mouth and then from the other side of your jaw your demented dictum that the ESV should not be used as a study Bible because you disagree with three renderings. How much of a following do you think you have with your absurd denunciations?

 

[Van]

Whose "demented dictum" claims the ESV now, after the 2011 update, only contains three mistranslations?

How many mild updates since 2001 other than the 2011 update?

 

[InTheLight]

Purpose of this thread was stated in the first post:

So here is the thread where people may post observations and comments about the differences between the two translations.

Can we get back to that and quit bickering about the ESV's copyright date?

 

[Van]

Purpose of this thread was stated in the first post:

So here is the thread where people may post observations and comments about the differences between the two translations.

Can we get back to that and quit bickering about the ESV's copyright date?

Here are the 2007 ESV update changes: http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv2007.html

 

[Van]

Lets take a look at Luke 18:24, was the rich young ruler sad, or was Jesus sad? From the previous verse we know that the rich young ruler was sad (or distressed.) Now some manuscripts have the phrase added, i.e. seeing he was sad, but others do not. The NET and NASB do not include the phrase, thus it is clear only the rich young ruler was sad.

Some translations, like the ESV include the redundant phrase, i.e. HCSB, where others do not. But the 2001 version of the verse in the ESV muddies the water even more, with a translation that can be misread to say Jesus was sad. Hence, the 2007 update.

 

[Van]

Lets take a look at Luke 1:15 where John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit "from his mother's womb." Is the idea he was filled before he came out of the womb, or after he came out of the womb? The ESV could be read either way. However, most modern translations make the verse unambiguous, he was filled while yet in his mother's womb, so the NASB.

 

[InTheLight]

Lets take a look at Luke 18:24, was the rich young ruler sad, or was Jesus sad? From the previous verse we know that the rich young ruler was sad (or distressed)

Obviously the rich young ruler was sad, not Jesus. I don't see any possible way to misconstrue the verse to think that Jesus was sad, in any translation.

 

[InTheLight]

Lets take a look at Luke 1:15 where John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit "from his mother's womb." Is the idea he was filled before he came out of the womb, or after he came out of the womb? The ESV could be read either way. However, most modern translations make the verse unambiguous, he was filled while yet in his mother's womb, so the NASB.

NASB: "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb."

NIV: "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born."

NIV is clearer.