NIV or ESV?

[Yeshua1]

Yet another personal attack, "obsessive little dude", launched from the guy that thinks from means before, and thus has no credibility with any rational mind.

You are clueless when it comes to the topic, of why folks are abandoning the NIV2011 in favor of the worse ESV because of its patriarchal viewpoint.

And the fiction that I "profess" to know well the NET. No quote will be forthcoming, simply another false statement, like from means before. Zero credibility with rational minds, and utterly off topic. You need to get off your kick of attacking others while you maintain from means before. Good Grief.

So how many calvinists were involved in translating the Niv van?

 

[Rippon]

I find the ESV to be inferior and sometimes downright clumsy compared to the NIV.

For years on end I have been posting threads on this very subject. It still hasn't dawned on many ESV users. And it isn't a matter of "We allowed awkward constructions because they are essentially literal." ;-)

The ESV has to be completely revamped if the publishers are serious about living up to half their hype. But, as I have also said : If such an undertaking takes place the ESV will look a lot like the NIV and they can't have that!

Ryken fails as an English stylist. They need to hire people who actually use current idiomatic English --yet with dignity. But again, that would look too much like the NIV.

 

[Rippon]

No need to give examples,

Yeah, no need to try to prove anything --just bare assertions are good enough for you.

 

[Rippon]

Again, the ESV is understandable, but uses unnecessarily convoluted, unnatural speech. The revisers certainly did not bring archaic language up to date.

Heb. 1:3
ESV : by the word of his power
NIV : by his powerful word

Heb. 10:7
ESV : in the scroll of the book
NIV : in the scroll

Matt. 7:27
ESV : it fell, and great was the sound of it
NIV : it fell with a loud crash

Luke 22:47
ESV : there came a crowd
NIV : a crowd came up

Luke 23:47
ESV : there followed him a great multitude of the people
NIV : a large number of people followed him

Luke 24:49
ESV : I am sending the promise of my Father upon you
NIV : I am going to send you what my Father promised

1 Cor. 15:41
ESV : There is one glory of the sun
NIV : The sun has one kind of splendour

 

[InTheLight]

2 Cor. 6:11-12

ESV: We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.

NIV: We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

Notice the ESV - - "our (plural) heart (singular) is wide open." So, what, heart surgery is being performed?

 

[Van]

So how many calvinists were involved in translating the Niv van?

So how many churches have dropped the NIV2011 like a hot potato in favor of the worse ESV because of its patriarchal viewpoint. That answer would be on topic, rather than the off topic posts of the Calvinists.

 

[go2church]

That is the very reason the SBC created the HCSB. The flap over the use of inclusive language was raging hot and wild, they went and bought Farstad's work, tweaked it a bit and ta-da, the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

What often the "inclusive language avoiders" miss is that there is inclusive language in both the HCSB and the ESV. They think they are avoiding it by not buying an NIV. So silly. As silly as Lifeway not selling the NIV because of inclusive language usage, but still selling the NLT and NRSV which have the same amounts of inclusive language or more.

 

[Van]

That is the very reason the SBC created the HCSB. The flap over the use of inclusive language was raging hot and wild, they went and bought Farstad's work, tweaked it a bit and ta-da, the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

What often the "inclusive language avoiders" miss is that there is inclusive language in both the HCSB and the ESV. They think they are avoiding it by not buying an NIV. So silly. As silly as Lifeway not selling the NIV because of inclusive language usage, but still selling the NLT and NRSV which have the same amounts of inclusive language or more.

Thanks for your spot on post, illuminating and informative.

 

[JonC]

Would say that the nasb is the best version for 'serious studies", but with the esv/Niv would be fine, but would still prefer to use the 1984 edition of the Niv....

I like the NASB much better - probably much being due to this being the version used when I was a kid. As a literal translation I don't think I would recommend another over the NASB...but I find it difficult to read aloud (and, as I stated earlier, I think sometimes striving for a literal meaning may miss the intent of the passage). The NIV takes a more interpretative path, which I do not like (partly because I believe they lose the original intent in places...like the Hebrews passage I mentioned). The more I study the less I like the NIV. I do like the ESV, but primarily because I don't get as tongue tied as with the NASB.

 

[InTheLight]

I like the NASB much better - probably much being due to this being the version used when I was a kid. As a literal translation I don't think I would recommend another over the NASB...but I find it difficult to read aloud (and, as I stated earlier, I think sometimes striving for a literal meaning may miss the intent of the passage).

Perhaps the NASB is a great study Bible because you have to use outside reference material to understand what it's saying. Take a look at the 2 Cor. 6:11-12 passage I compared above:

NASB 2 Cor. 6:11 Our mouth has spoken freely to you, O Corinthians, our heart is opened wide. 12 You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.

Plus it's filled with footnotes that have aids to understanding what the verse is actually saying.

I prefer to read the Bible and know and understand what it means on the first pass, without having to grab a dictionary or constantly referencing footnotes.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps the NASB is a great study Bible because you have to use outside reference material to understand what it's saying. Take a look at the 2 Cor. 6:11-12 passage I compared above:

NASB 2 Cor. 6:11 Our mouth has spoken freely to you, O Corinthians, our heart is opened wide. 12 You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.

Plus it's filled with footnotes that have aids to understanding what the verse is actually saying.

I prefer to read the Bible and know and understand what it means on the first pass, without having to grab a dictionary or constantly referencing footnotes.

Perhaps. I have not found a translation that I would feel comfortable reading without studying. Maybe this is why I don't like the NIV as much (it is not difficult to understand the NIV translator's interpretation of passages, but I am not as fully confident in its interpretations in all instances). But you are right that the NIV is a much easier read.

 

[Yeshua1]

So how many churches have dropped the NIV2011 like a hot potato in favor of the worse ESV because of its patriarchal viewpoint. That answer would be on topic, rather than the off topic posts of the Calvinists.

Do you meran here that we can discount the truth in the Bible that God ordianed authority as being male, as rulers over their households, and has the spiritual authority within the church?

Those two truths were what the nasb/HCSB and other MV kept!

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps. I have not found a translation that I would feel comfortable reading without studying. Maybe this is why I don't like the NIV as much (it is not difficult to understand the NIV translator's interpretation of passages, but I am not as fully confident in its interpretations in all instances). But you are right that the NIV is a much easier read.[/QUOTE

That would be the basic ]problem with a version being more dynamic in how it viewed rendering the translation from the original languages, as though it does indeed make for a much easier flow/read, it also means that at times we have to assume that the decisions the schoals made/their commentary on the text, was the one to take!

 

[JonC]

Perhaps. I have not found a translation that I would feel comfortable reading without studying. Maybe this is why I don't like the NIV as much (it is not difficult to understand the NIV translator's interpretation of passages, but I am not as fully confident in its interpretations in all instances). But you are right that the NIV is a much easier read.[/QUOTE

That would be the basic ]problem with a version being more dynamic in how it viewed rendering the translation from the original languages, as though it does indeed make for a much easier flow/read, it also means that at times we have to assume that the decisions the schoals made/their commentary on the text, was the one to take!

I think that even the NIV advocates realize that, insofar as a word-for-word translation goes, it is inferior and more specific to a particular interpretation than some other translations (although it is not by a long shot the worst). But even using the NASB one must take into account interpretation (which words to use, and of course words which cannot be translated into a particular/singular word in English). I am/was a poor Greek student (not only monetarily speaking) so I rely on several commentaries (which means that I also rely on the interpretations of others - the difference being I weigh the reasoning of several scholars to come up with my flawed understanding). But I do believe in reasoning out our understandings and not being “spoon fed” an interpretation under the guise of “the Word of God.” If the word is unclear, so be it…I don’t want a translation that “clarifies” it for me - make me do the work.

 

[Van]

One of the myths about the NIV 2011 is that it stepped back significantly from the TNIV. But in truth, the NIV2011 only stepped back and returned about 1% of the verses to the 1984 version, whereas it kept about 30% of the verse revisions found in the TNIV.

 

[Van]

Do you mean we can discount the truth in the Bible...?

Like the KJVO folks, anyone who thinks the Bible should be translated accurately is disparaged as denying truth because it does not mesh with their preconceived doctrine. Is the NIV always wrong when it translates terms inclusively? Nope.

No one should fear accurate translation. Older traditional translations may have been accurate and should be retained, and not modified to satisfy liberal pressure. But if the old traditional translations were inaccurate, they should be updated.

 

[Yeshua1]

Like the KJVO folks, anyone who thinks the Bible should be translated accurately is disparaged as denying truth because it does not mesh with their preconceived doctrine. Is the NIV always wrong when it translates terms inclusively? Nope.

No one should fear accurate translation. Older traditional translations may have been accurate and should be retained, and not modified to satisfy liberal pressure. But if the old traditional translations were inaccurate, they should be updated.

So do you view the esv/Niv as good translations or not, on the whole?

 

[Van]

So do you view the esv/Niv as good translations or not, on the whole?

Truth matters, not your opinion or mine. I have said the ESV, NIV and NLT are poor choices for study because they have been corrupted with Calvinist bias, and other less corrupted translations are available.

As others have pointed out, for reading I like the NIV (84) because in the majority of cases it puts forth God's message with clarity and accuracy. However, in my opinion,
sometimes it (the NIV, especially the 2011 update) corrupts the message, such as at 2 Corinthians 5:17.

And as I said, for my study I use the NASB95, filtered by removing the italicized words and inserting the Literal footnote words or phrases.

 

[Van]

Lets consider Philemon 1:6:

ESV Phil. 1:6, "and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ."

NIV Phil. 1:6, "I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ."

When we in modern times speak of sharing our faith, we are referring to evangelism, of telling others of our faith in Christ, and so that is the implication of the ESV translation.

But the NIV puts it totally the other way around, our fellowship with others builds us up. The ESV, NET, and NKJV all present the text like the ESV does, i.e. the traditional translation. The NASB and HCSB present an ambiguous phrase, "fellowship of the faith" (or participation in the faith) which might indicate the idea so clearly presented by the NIV, but you have to work at it.

 

[Van]

If a reference to man points to people in general, then inclusive language is warranted, but if a particular person, say a male, might be in view, i.e. the Messiah, then inclusive language pushes Christ out of the text. Lets look at Psalm 8:4:

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

Now the writer of Hebrews (2:6) uses this verse to point to the Messiah, but the quote at Hebrews 2:6 does not read the same:

“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?

The problem is not difficult to solve, but you must be committed to present the text over and above political correctness.

Here is a simple translation that is as inclusive as intended, yet still specific to the Messiah, "What is humankind that you are mindful of each person, a son of man that you care for that person?"