Thanks Deacon. That's the sort of thing I'm looking for.
-
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?
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
- Status
So I did. I told you I’m getting forgetful in my old age.
I expressed my thoughts in that post (and probably many others) poorly. I did not mean the translators tweaked the NIV towards a specific theological understanding but that they (as with us all when explaining Scripture) seem to me to have interpreted more than may be warranted or necessary by the text. What I mean in post #55 is that perhaps this cannot be avoided in a more “thought for thought” rendering of Scripture. If the interpretation is correct then it adds clarity. If it is flawed then it is easier to read but may cloud the intent of the author or subdue the richness of the text. I (and this is a personal preference) would much rather run across something in Scripture that does not make sense to me, and causes me to research and study a passage, than be offered one’s interpretation (even if it is correct) instead…again acknowledging the necessity of interpretation in all translation. My fear is that the NIV facilitates a false and contemporary context for the biblical narrative and much of the richness of Scripture is lost. I like running across those conjunctions (e.g., Heb 7:11) that are left out of the NIV but point back to previous text. I like stumbling across propitiation and looking at why the author alluded to God’s wrath (rather than the more general “atonement” used in the NIV…although clarified in the notes). But what I am speaking of is my opinion of the NIV (which is not, actually, a low opinion although the NIV not my preference). It does not bother me if you hold it as the more accurate representation of Scripture in our language. I don’t mind preachers using it in the pulpit (ours uses the NKJV, which is also not my favorite). I think that between the ESV, NASB, and NIV each has strengths and weaknesses and the NIV is not my pick for a study Bible.
This verse and the previous examples I provided are departures from the Masoretic Hebrew text in favor of the ancient Qumran [Dead Sea] Scrolls.
This particular verse is one I check for in every new translation I read.
It is interesting because the psalm is an acrostic psalm missing the letter "N" [nun] in older bibles. The addition is found in the Qumran texts which fills in the missing letter.
Psalm 145:13
NIV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises and faithful in all he does.
ESV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. [The LORD is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works.]
NASB95 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
AV 1873 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Rob
This particular verse is one I check for in every new translation I read.
It is interesting because the psalm is an acrostic psalm missing the letter "N" [nun] in older bibles. The addition is found in the Qumran texts which fills in the missing letter.
Psalm 145:13
NIV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises and faithful in all he does.
ESV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. [The LORD is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works.]
NASB95 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
AV 1873 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
Think that they could have updated it Without bring into it the gender issues!
And do still like and use my 1984 Niv!
Think that most of the time, the versions will either have it translated, or in the varient notes the differing wys to render it, so no real "agenda" to distort the Bible, just honest disagreements on which to give priority status to which source text used!
There is no excuse for your ignorance --you have been informed on this time and time again and still refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Do you want to call the following "gender issues"?
John 1:4
ESV : In him was life, and the life was the light of all men.
NIV : In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Acts 4:12
ESV : And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
NIV : Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Romans 5:18
ESV : Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
NIV : Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
Rippon,
I forgot to give you a couple of examples (as you requested and I intended to provide in addition to those in Hebrews I mentioned). I guess the thrust of that thread has departed, but I didn’t want to leave your inquiry unanswered. You mentioned DA Carson acknowledges interpretation in every translation, and I guess I agree this is necessary to a degree. But there is a difference when it comes to discerning the intent and thought of the author and choosing the best word for a particular Greek word.
In translating the Bible into English, I think it is possible that some translations obscure what the Bible actually says.
My stating that God “watches over” the way of the righteous is much easier to understand than God “knows” the way of the righteous. In Psalm 1:6, the NIV takes the liberty of clarifying for us what the Psalmist intended to say. The problem, of course, is that it is not clear by any means that the text really means “watches over.” Personally, I think “knows” carries a much deeper meaning - but regardless, I do not see the NIV interpretation warranted…except (regardless of right or wrong) it is easier to understand.
Psalm 63:11 “But the king shall rejoice in God; all who swear by him shall exult, for the mouths of liars will be stopped (ESV).” The NIV comes in and clarifies what the text said for us: “all who swear by God’s name will praise him.” Maybe they were right in their clarification…but they are trying to provide for the English reader a clarity that is absent in the Hebrew Scripture. I am not confident that this is the right method of translation.
1 Peter 3:15 reads “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord…” The NIV uses “set apart” instead of “sanctify.” But “set apart” does not convey the meaning of sanctify (maybe “set apart as holy” would have worked better).
I suppose an example of why I don’t like “thought for thought” can be found in MacArthur’s study notes. He would interpret 1 John 2:2 to read “not only for our sins but also for the sins of the elect of the whole world.” Whether I disagree or agree with him is not the issue…it should be interpreted as written, not by what we think they were thinking.
These are 3 examples (5 if you count the NIV’s use of “atonement” and omission of the conjunction in Hebrews). I’m sure I could find more and I’m sure you don’t really care to go verse by verse (I don’t, because as “thought for thought” goes, NIV is the better of the bunch).
For study, I think that a Bible translation that is more transparent to the text being translated is better. I guess the question is whether or not one wants a Bible that tells them what the translators think the author’s thoughts were or a Bible that strives to provide a translation of the text and have the audience do the work. Personally, I prefer the latter.
I hope that I have fulfilled my part in answering your inquiry. It is an obligation I initiated by commenting on the thread (something others have not recognized...not you, Rippon...you seem on the ball when it comes to explaining your position). I've changed jobs and do not have as much time to check on the BB, but if I miss a needed reply, please point it out to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many times one Greek word has to be rendered into several English words.
The NLT and HCSB also have "watch over." And part of the Net note for this is:"metonymically [it] could mean 'watch over,protect,guard.' "
That may be what you see, howver the NIV translators do not enter into their task lightly. Some of the finest Bible scholars are on the team.
No, Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV renders it :"But the king will rejoice in God; all who swear by God will glory in him, while the mouths of liars will be silenced."
No, Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV text reads :"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord..."
The very same John who penned that Epistle wrote the Gospel of John. You need to compare 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52.
Thanks for your efforts Jon. Just be sure to actually quote what the NIV really says.
You're about 15 years younger than I am --don't speak of old age prematurely.
The above nugget was buried in your wordy paragraph. You need to explain the reasons for your wild assertions.
The strangeness of the word propitiation would indeed be a cause for folks stumbling.
In NET notes it says:"The English word 'propitiation' is too technical to communicate with many modern readers, and a term like atoning sacrifice (given by Webster's New International Dictionary as a definition of propitiation) is more appropriate here."
In 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 other Bible versions use the term "atoning sacrifice" such as ISV,NET Bible, Weymouth and Web. And I think the MLB as well as Norlie does too.
In Romans 3:25 the NIV footnote has the following info for sacrifice of atonement:"Refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant."
In NLT1 (the 1996 edition) it has this rendering for the verse:"For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us..."
In the Darby translation which is said to be even more literal than the 1901 ARV it has :"whom God has set forth a mercy-seat..."
The term proptiation is not indispensable.
I think I'm ageing quickly....maybe the military or getting out of the military...but I am having some issues with feeling old and tired (I joke, but seriously, having just retired from the military I am feeling a bit lost, tired, and overwhelmed).
Thank you, Rippon, for the interaction. My NIV has "set apart" for "sanctify" in my translation (which I can understand more than "revere"...that's an awful - IMHO - translation of "sanctify"). But we do not need to get into the weeds on this topic. I do not like "thought for thought" translations for the reasons that I, and perhaps others, have covered. You prefer "thought for thought" translations. So be it....we disagree. I'm sure when it comes down to studying the text or examining the author's intent neither of us rely on a specific translation. My fear is that those who read the NIV will never go deeper (i.e., "revere" equating "sanctify"...that's probably as good an example as any). But who knows. The gospel is clear in the NIV and the NASB and I don't think either of the translations were produced by people taking their tasks lightly. I disagree with the methodology of the NIV. We differ and so be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you had any surgeries yet? That may qualify you for feeling older.
But when I speak of the NIV it refers to the current edition.
Didn’t think of it…but maybe you’re on to something.
Not at all. I think we should all revere Christ. But I don’t think reverence a synonym to sanctifying (although you, and the translators of the NIV may…this is perhaps merely a difference of interpretation).
Psalm 63:11 (NIV)
11 But the king will rejoice in God; all who swear by God's name will praise him…
Your NIV apparently says
My objection was the clarification of by whom they would swear - it isn’t clarified to the Hebrew people and I mentioned that I didn’t know that it needed clarification to a contemporary audience. Yes, “praise” has been changed to “glory” (or vise versa), but what’s your point?
I do agree that the “strangeness” of the word propitiation may be an issue for a casual reader without a dictionary…but it does carry a meaning more specific than “atonement.” Perhaps it better to deal with difficult words.
You are more than welcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
"To the Hebrew people" --you mean in the Hebrew. Well at least two other translations use the phraselogy of "all who swear by God" are something very much like it. It makes it plain that God and not the king is being referenced. Now if you think it's a major deal for a noun --God --to used instead of a pronoun --him-- then you'd have to give an explanation why the ESV does the very same thing on multiple occasions in the New Testament.
I was simply quoting the whole verse of the NIV text instead of a partial quote you gave of it. Yet you had quoted the entire verse from the ESV.
Why do you assume the readership is casual? Some readers may have English as a second or third language. Others may have lower literacy rate.
You keep saying that. But the NIV and the other translations that I referenced used "sacrifice of atonement."
But the bare word 'atonement' is used quite frequently in the ESV Old Testament.
Perhaps it is not necessary to do that sort of grappling when other,less difficult words are at our disposal.
But then, you said on 6/26/2013 :"We use the NIV in church now."
And you said this on the same day: "Quite often the NIV gets it right."
Apparently one year ago you had not yet made your groundbreaking discovery that the ESV and NIV are Calvinistically-inspired translations that must be rooted out.
Yes...certainly. And the NIV isn't that off in the case I mentioned because of the clarification in the footnotes.
Thinking about it, I don’t know that you understand my objection to the method of translation. I am not the best communicator, but I will offer this observation as an example.
For the verse I mentioned, “atonement” is not a good translation…mostly because the word is not the closest definition of what the word being translated means. Does it “make sense” in the verse? Yes. Is it an easier to understand in the sentence? Yes, as sentences go…but no insofar as the verse being translated means as it is less clear. Does it mean the same thing? No...the reader is free to understand the intent to be any aspect of atonement, they can choose “expiation” or “propitiation,” for example. Given "atonement," which meaning would you choose? Given "propitiation," the meaning is clear although perhaps more difficult.
For the verse I mentioned, “atonement” is not a good translation…mostly because the word is not the closest definition of what the word being translated means. Does it “make sense” in the verse? Yes. Is it an easier to understand in the sentence? Yes, as sentences go…but no insofar as the verse being translated means as it is less clear. Does it mean the same thing? No...the reader is free to understand the intent to be any aspect of atonement, they can choose “expiation” or “propitiation,” for example. Given "atonement," which meaning would you choose? Given "propitiation," the meaning is clear although perhaps more difficult.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't the reader of the 1984 Niv alsounderstand thatwhen it states among men, of men, refers to women also?l
That we are the sons/daughters of God?
Why change it, especially as the version already had rendered the passages correctly, as they did get that there were still some passages that were meant to reflect "male bia", and why change it, when already was read and understood as they sought?
Most of what some have perceived to have been male bias in the bible versions actually did reflect what God stated and meant?
Last edited by a moderator:
What verse are you discussing --1 John 2:2? I will assume it is that verse. A translation can't be a Bible commentary. A student of the Word will seek out the meaning of a given passage and related passages.
See above. It's my view that within the text an understandable rendering is better than a confusing one. A person should consult a Bible commentary or other helps to supplement their understanding.
It's not an either/or situation. A student of the Word will seek out an explanation. You are under the impression that by using the specific word "propitiation" --then poof, the reader will have an orthodox comprehension of Christ's cross-work. No John. It doesn't work that way.
If it is difficult then it's not clear. ;-)
You are fighting a losing battle. Using that particular word does not solve all problems when it comes to...watch out...the Atonement! One old-fashioned Latinate term will not a good translation make said Yoda.
The phraseology of "atoning sacrifice has been a common rendering for a while now. It is not just a NIV reading. As I mentioned, the Norlie and MLB, if my memory serves me correctly, used it. Some early 20th century translations employed it such as: the Twentieth Century New Testament, Weymouth, and Goodspeed. And some modern version use the term too :The WEB has it, as well as the NRSV, NET Bible and the ISV.
Do you know what the word vernacular means? Should a good modern version render the Word in the vernacular or not?
- Status