• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NIV or ESV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lets consider Philemon 1:6:

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.

Philemon is a Christian. I'm going with the NIV here. Look at verse 4-5: Paul has heard of Philemon's "love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints." It's clearly written about the brethren. Do Christians need to be witnessed to? No. Besides, how does "sharing of the faith" (witnessing) give someone "knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake"?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Philemon is a Christian. I'm going with the NIV here. Look at verse 4-5: Paul has heard of Philemon's "love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints." It's clearly written about the brethren. Do Christians need to be witnessed to? No. Besides, how does "sharing of the faith" (witnessing) give someone "knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake"?

Yes, that was my point, apparently poorly made. The NIV2011 presents the best translation of all at this particular verse.
 
NIV Matthew 23:4
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

ESV Matthew 23:4
They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

I think "won't lift a finger" to help is an idiom that is in common usage and is easily understood by most people. So why does the ESV say "not willing to move them with a finger"?
Because that is what the Greek says. The NASB, which is the most states it similarly to the ESV ...
Matthew 23, NASB
4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."
It is a Greek idiom, and is indicative of the Pharisees' unwillingness to give relief to those they burden with the Law. It is a much more stark condemnation than "won't lift a finger" in that a finger is incapable of moving a heavy burden. The image given in the original Greek is that the Pharisee will not even pretend to help. In other words, there is not even pretense among the legalists. They don't care if they are seen as unwilling to help. They could do so by giving advise on how to move the burden. They won't even do that.

The NIV, as has been stated tiresomely on this board but apparently without effect, is a thought-for-thought translation, whereas the NASB and ESV are word-for-word translations. This is a much more effective way of conveying the original meaning and context. Don't get me wrong, the NIV is an effective translation, particularly the older versions of it such as your 1984 edition. But thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NIV, as has been stated tiresomely on this board but apparently without effect, is a thought-for-thought translation, whereas the NASB and ESV are word-for-word translations.

Wrong again tnd. Even an interlinear isn't a word-for-word 15% of the time or more. The NASB and ESV use a phrase-for-phrase and sentence-for-sentence approach much more than you have been led to believe.
This is a much more effective way of conveying the original meaning and context. thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does.
The original meaning in context is key and a word-for-word methodology is not going to cut the proverbial mustard. Have you ever heard of the phrase contextual meaning? Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because that is what the Greek says. The NASB, which is the most states it similarly to the ESV ...
Matthew 23, NASB
4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."
It is a Greek idiom, and is indicative of the Pharisees' unwillingness to give relief to those they burden with the Law. It is a much more stark condemnation than "won't lift a finger" in that a finger is incapable of moving a heavy burden.

Yes, the NASB outshines the ESV in this instance. By using the phrase "unwilling to move them with so much as a finger" the NASB conveys the thought. However, if you look at the NASB, they have added the words 'so much' to clarify the verse for the reader. Apparently the ESV went the direct, literal route and didn't add a qualifying phrase as to the relativity of using the finger to move something. The way the ESV is translated here it wants people to interpret the verse as if a finger COULD move the heavy burden.

Anyway, ESV loses to NIV and NASB in this case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Wrong again tnd. Even an interlinear isn't a word-for-word 15% of the time or more. The NASB and ESV use a phrase-for-phrase and sentence-for-sentence approach much more than you have been led to believe.

The original meaning in context is key and a word-for-word methodology is not going to cut the proverbial mustard. Have you ever heard of the phrase contextual meaning? Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?


His point is eseentially correct though, as a version that is more word for word carries over more accurately what the original languages stated, but the thought for thought at times actually clarifies better for us what that means...

I can read literally what was said, but at times it would be hard to grasp, as its going from greek/hebrew into english...

That is why I tend to use all 3, nasb/esv/1984 niv!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
His point is eseentially correct though, as a version that is more word for word carries over more accurately what the original languages stated,
What something stated and what something means can be two very differnt things altogether.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
"In all instances" is a pretty hefty order. No translation is going to be 100% on the mark all the time.

As D.A. Cartson has said: "Every reading of a text by a finite being is an interpretation of it. There are more faithful interpretations and less faithful interpretations, more accurate interpretations and less accurate interpretations, but we cannot avoid interpretations."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you mean here that we can discount the truth in the Bible that God ordained 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!
As does the NIV.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
Correction: 61.1% of the 2011 NIV text is identical with the 1984 NIV text. In addition, 7.9% of verses in the 2011 NIV differ with both the 1984 NIV and the TNIV.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
"In all instances" is a pretty hefty order. No translation is going to be 100% on the mark all the time.

As D.A. Cartson has said: "Every reading of a text by a finite being is an interpretation of it. There are more faithful interpretations and less faithful interpretations, more accurate interpretations and less accurate interpretations, but we cannot avoid interpretations."

You are right. I was trying to be gracious. While I do not believe the NIV to be a “bad” translation, it is not what I consider a good translation (largely due to the amount of interpretation that I do not believe warranted by the text - and yes, I do now that every translation involves interpretative measures). For those who study, I do not think this a huge issue (but for those who simply want to read what is said…perhaps they may accept interpretations not knowing the “liberties” taken to suit the text to the modern reader and support the theologies of its translators). This is also, of course, true to some extent with all translations.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Where, exactly are these supposedly large amounts of interpretive liberties taken by the NIV translators that you apparently have not detected in your favorite versions?

Shouldn't the modern reader be the target audience of any contemporay Bible translation?

Are you on a Van-kick when you speak of the theology of its translators?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Where, exactly are these supposedly large amounts of interpretive liberties taken by the NIV translators that you apparently have not detected in your favorite versions?

Shouldn't the modern reader be the target audience of any contemporay Bible translation?

Are you on a Van-kick when you speak of the theology of its translators?

I noticed several studying Hebrews...but I will have to reply in more detail when I get home. The only example I can think of off hand of poor interpretation is in your reply (you interpreted "largely due to" in my statement to "large amounts").

I don't know what you mean regarding a "Van-kick."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only example I can think of off hand of poor interpretation is in your reply (you interpreted "largely due to" in my statement to "large amounts").
Well, let's face it --if you thought that the NIV has only a few poor interpretations you would not have any issue to complain about. You do indeed think that it is riddled with poor interpretations.
I don't know what you mean regarding a "Van-kick."
It's hard to believe that you haven't noticed. Van thinks the NIV,NLT and ESV have a pervasive theological Calvinistic bias in a number of translational decisions. You seemed to go along with his view with your "theology of the translators" --although they come from various denominational backgrounds.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Well, let's face it --if you thought that the NIV has only a few poor interpretations you would not have any issue to complain about. You do indeed think that it is riddled with poor interpretations.

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? I do think it was an unnecessary translation and that it is more interpretative than I like (not that I always disagree with their conclusions and not that it does not shine in a couple of places where “word for word” may miss the mark). As a whole I don't think it the best choice for study. But I don't think it "riddled with poor interpretations."

It's hard to believe that you haven't noticed. Van thinks the NIV,NLT and ESV have a pervasive theological Calvinistic bias in a number of translational decisions. You seemed to go along with his view with your "theology of the translators" --although they come from various denominational backgrounds.

I have not paid that much attention (I know many hold the ESV to be pervasively Calvinistic, but I did not realize that the argument was the same for the NIV). I don’t really know Van’s “theology of the translators” view, so I refrain from commenting there. I just think that the NIV could have been less interpretative while seeking to reach a contemporary audience – but then again, perhaps not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Science? What in the world does science have to do with my post?

I do think it was an unnecessary translation and that it is more interpretative than I like
As I quoted from D.A. Carson (and could have quoted from many more) every Bible translation is interpretative.
(not that I always disagree with their conclusions and not that it does not shine in a couple of places where “word for word” may miss the mark). As a whole I don't think it the best choice for study. But I don't think it "riddled with poor interpretations."
Okay, so now you think the NIV has a few places in which you disagree with the rendering of some verses --not that it is filled with with poor interpretations. Fair enough.



I have not paid that much attention (I know many hold the ESV to be pervasively Calvinistic, but I did not realize that the argument was the same for the NIV). I don’t really know Van’s “theology of the translators” view, so I refrain from commenting there. I just think that the NIV could have been less interpretative while seeking to reach a contemporary audience – but then again, perhaps not.[/QUOTE]
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Science has nothing to do with my prior post.
I do think it was an unnecessary translation
You think the 1984 NIV should have remained static and never improved upon?
and that it is more interpretative than I like (not that I always disagree with their conclusions and not that it does not shine in a couple of places where “word for word” may miss the mark). As a whole I don't think it the best choice for study. But I don't think it "riddled with poor interpretations."
As I quoted from D.A. Carson (and I could have quoted from other New Testament Bible scholars) every single Bible translation is filled with interpretation.

But you seem to have backtracked and now feel that in a few places you disagree with some renderings --as is the case with any Bible translation. You are now saying that it is not filled with poor interpretations --"just a couple of places."


I don’t really know Van’s “theology of the translators” view, so I refrain from commenting there.
Well then, please tell me what you were talking about when you cited the translators' theology.
just think that the NIV could have been less interpretative while seeking to reach a contemporary audience – but then again, perhaps not.
As I asked before, shouldn't every Bible translation seek to reach a modern audience --wasn't that a major thrust of Tyndale and even John Purvey? It just makes sense.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jon, you had said in post # 51 that liberties were "taken to suit the text to the modern reader and support the theology of its translators."
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why I like the ESV

My church went to the ESV after using the NIV for decades. I carry an NIV (1984) study Bible with me to church so I am able to directly compare the two translations side-by-side. Bible Gateway.com is also handy for these purposes. I find the ESV to be inferior and sometimes downright clumsy compared to the NIV.

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

We've been studying through Deuteronomy in adult Sunday school.
Here are some notable translational differences:

Deuteronomy 32:8

NIV 2011 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

ESV 2001 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

NASB 1995 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel.

AV 1873 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people According to the number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:43

NIV 2011 Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

ESV 2001 Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.

NASB 1995 Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.

AV 1873 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: For he will avenge the blood of his servants, And will render vengeance to his adversaries, And will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top