NIV or ESV?

[JonC]

What verse are you discussing --1 John 2:2?

Actually, no. Even though I offered some other examples, I have (as indicated) been speaking of Hebrews. Hebrews 2:17. While they maintain a vagueness in the translation they do offer another interpretation in the notes (hinting at propitiation). But if we are speaking of readability, then perhaps “make atonement” is also too foreign to those outside of religion to understand. Maybe they should stick with “Jesus died.” It’s true, it’s clear, and it’s easy to understand. So what if it changing “make atonement” to “Jesus died” is less precise….so is “make atonement.” (I know I am being extreme…but outside of the Church, “atonement” is not as clear as many make it seem…perhaps, it also needs explaining, even more so, than the aspect of “propitiation”). Again, I know I’m being extreme - please don’t take it as disrespect…just trying to illustrate my view of striving to maintain a closeness to the text rather than the thought in translation.

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.

It is not, always. There is a vagueness, particularly in “word for word” translations where the reader has to struggle to determine the meaning - resulting in varied and competing interpretations (hence the BB). My issue with “propitiation” in this passage is that it points specifically to the turning of God’s wrath rather than offering another word and allowing the reader to choose whatever meaning suits them.

I am not “fighting a battle” over that particular word (the NIV makes suitable, IMHO, clarification in its notes). It is with the principle of “thought for thought” translation with which I disagree.

If it is difficult then it's not clear. ;-)

But also remember that clarity does not mean correctness. I can be clear all day long and be dead wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you know what the word vernacular means? Should a good modern version render the Word in the vernacular or not?

t

I can understand well either the 1977 nas/1984 Niv, should there was really no need for an update on either of those two!

And the esv/HCSb were boh fine as originally translated...

To me , the biggest reason to revise/upfate a translation would be ONLY if the sources used had an update, like from say earlier edition of the Greek texts, to the lastest one..

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, no. Even though I offered some other examples, I have (as indicated) been speaking of Hebrews. Hebrews 2:17. While they maintain a vagueness in the translation they do offer another interpretation in the notes (hinting at propitiation). But if we are speaking of readability, then perhaps “make atonement” is also too foreign to those outside of religion to understand. Maybe they should stick with “Jesus died.” It’s true, it’s clear, and it’s easy to understand. So what if it changing “make atonement” to “Jesus died” is less precise….so is “make atonement.” (I know I am being extreme…but outside of the Church, “atonement” is not as clear as many make it seem…perhaps, it also needs explaining, even more so, than the aspect of “propitiation”). Again, I know I’m being extreme - please don’t take it as disrespect…just trying to illustrate my view of striving to maintain a closeness to the text rather than the thought in translation.



It is not, always. There is a vagueness, particularly in “word for word” translations where the reader has to struggle to determine the meaning - resulting in varied and competing interpretations (hence the BB). My issue with “propitiation” in this passage is that it points specifically to the turning of God’s wrath rather than offering another word and allowing the reader to choose whatever meaning suits them.

I am not “fighting a battle” over that particular word (the NIV makes suitable, IMHO, clarification in its notes). It is with the principle of “thought for thought” translation with which I disagree.



But also remember that clarity does not mean correctness. I can be clear all day long and be dead wrong.

there are theological tinged words that have been carefully defined and used in the church, such as propiation/atonement, so would much rather have a version keep those words then changing it to something "easier to understand"...

And when we go too much for phrase by phrase/thought by thought, do get sometimes extra understandings placed in there, more like a contemporary commentary as to what it should have meant, not what was intended!

 

[Rippon]

there are theological tinged words that have been carefully defined and used in the church, such as propiation/atonement, so would much rather have a version keep those words then changing it to something "easier to understand"...

You know it is a hoot and a half when you deride the NIV and other Bible translations of dumbing things down when you can't even spell key words related to the subject. It's p-r-o-p-i-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

And if you want Bible versions to retain words like "atonement" that's what the versions I have listed do. What's your beef?

And when we go too much for phrase by phrase/thought by thought, do get sometimes extra understandings placed in there,

And that's exactly what most Bible translations do --as I pointed out to you on another thread. It's a principle that Jerome and John Purvey sought to implement. And it makes sense --sense-for-sense. word-for-word is impossible to maintain.

 

[Rippon]

t

I can understand well either the 1977 nas/1984 Niv, should there was really no need for an update on either of those two!

Of course there were good reasons for revisions of both of those translations. Do you think that all Bible should be locked in place --never to be updated?

And the esv/HCSb were boh fine as originally translated...

You are quite mistaken. "Boh" were and are in need of refinement.

 

[Rippon]

Experiencing technical difficulties

Jon, it's strange. I am having problems quoting you. I can pull up your post 77 which I have already commented upon, but I can't quote your post #81. I have tried multiple times. I can quote posts by others, but not you. I will try again at another time.

 

[JonC]

Jon, it's strange. I am having problems quoting you. I can pull up your post 77 which I have already commented upon, but I can't quote your post #81. I have tried multiple times. I can quote posts by others, but not you. I will try again at another time.

That’s OK…I’m not worth quoting anyway. :wavey:

I have been thinking about your argument for the dynamic equivalence of the NIV. I still do not agree with this type of interpretation, but the point that I do see in your posts is that if words become meaningless in a language then it is meaningless to use them to communicate in a translation. Thinking of words that have pretty much become meaningless (foreign outside of the Church, and perhaps a little to “common” or taken for granted within the church) I believe I can find several. These include the one’s I’ve been trying to use as an example and others (e.g., atonement, propitiation, sin, righteousness, sanctification, holy, etc.). These seem not to carry a definition natural to our contemporary speech. I am just not sure how much we can back away from a precise meaning of a word in a translation in order to interpret the thoughts behind these words without the text becoming more a commentary than a translation. That said, I do understand the difficulty and necessity of communicating to a contemporary audience. I do not believe dynamic equivalence to be the answer, but I do realize the difficulty in my own position.

I do not understand some of the choices in the NIV, and this on me and not necessarily the translators. An example would be translating meno (“abide” or “remain”). The word appears about 38 times in the Gospel and epistles of John. The ESV translates it “abide” all but once (where it translates it “continues”). The NIV translates it “remain”,” last”, “live”, “lives”, “continue”, “be”, and leaves it out in 1 John 3:15.

Another example would be 1 Peter 3:15’s use of Isaiah 8:13. This I have mentioned (the changing of “sanctify” to “set apart,” which I would be good with if it included “as holy.”). My reasoning is twofold. First, “set apart” does not mean “sanctify.” Second, without indicating to sanctify or set apart as holy, the verse loses its connection to Isaiah 8:13.

Even if the only thing we can agree on in this post is my first sentence, know that I am in no way suggesting that your study of Scripture is hampered by the NIV. Reading your posts I am confident that you go beyond the translation you choose, very likely more than I. My concern is for those who do not, that take the interpretations at surface value…but this is a potential problem with any translation and perhaps reflects more on the maturity of the Christian as it does on the translation used.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Today's observation is from Matthew 23, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

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"?

If a heavy burden is placed on someone, people don't want someone to move it around on their shoulders they want help in lifting the burden! Really, who says someone is unwilling to move something with their finger when describing not giving help with a heavy load?

A good book defending the NIV is called

How to Choose a Translation for all its worth.

I use both translations often and can see what you are saying about the ESV and its sometimes awkward english. I read through all the gospels and saw this often. Personally I would use the NIV for devotional, personal reading, and sometimes open air preaching. However the ESV is superior for word studies.Both translations have their place and everyone has a different opinion on the matter.

 

[evangelist6589]

No need to give examples, you are one of the Calvinists who agreed from means before in one phrase, but means from in exactly the same phrase elsewhere.

In my opinion, Calvinists have no credibility until they admit from does not mean before.

Knock it off. This is a thread on bible translation and not theology. Plenty of Calvinists have worked with Arminian to write good books on bibliology.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

I don't know entirely about that. I use it sometimes when I open air preach and it stands out as being more clear in some passages. However I primarily use the KJV/NKJV which are more literal than the ESV in my open air.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course there were good reasons for revisions of both of those translations. Do you think that all Bible should be locked in place --never to be updated?

You are quite mistaken. "Boh" were and are in need of refinement.

How so?

The problem with any of those translations is NOT that they must get updated every few years, as that should only happen when there was an improvenent in their textual bases, but major problem is that many Christians have become "dumbed down", as they don't know the theological wording used in the Bible, nor much of its theology/doctrines!

the Holy Spirit inspired each word down to us in the originals, so why change the word that He choose?

 

[Yeshua1]

You know it is a hoot and a half when you deride the NIV and other Bible translations of dumbing things down when you can't even spell key words related to the subject. It's p-r-o-p-i-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

And if you want Bible versions to retain words like "atonement" that's what the versions I have listed do. What's your beef?

And that's exactly what most Bible translations do --as I pointed out to you on another thread. It's a principle that Jerome and John Purvey sought to implement. And it makes sense --sense-for-sense. word-for-word is impossible to maintain.

if ones holds to the Verbal plenary sense of inspiration, how does one translate thought for thought?

 

[Rippon]

if ones holds to the Verbal plenary sense of inspiration, how does one translate thought for thought?

Your question doesn't make any sense. But if you are linking a belief of verbal plenary inspiration with more formal equivalece translations exclusively --you are barking up the wrong tree. Carson, Strauss and Decker all think the charge is nonsense. The recently deceased Dr. Decker said that Ryken's link [of formal equivalence and verbal inspiration]" is amateurish and indefensible."

 

[Rippon]

How so?

The problem with any of those translations is NOT that they must get updated every few years, as that should only happen when there was an improvenent in their textual bases, but major problem is that many Christians have become "dumbed down", as they don't know the theological wording used in the Bible, nor much of its theology/doctrines!

With your level of grammar,punctuation and spelling --you have no room to admonish anyone about dumbing-down anything.

the Holy Spirit inspired each word down to us in the originals, so why change the word that He choose?

Haven't you heard? The originals were not written in English. I know that must come as a shock to you --but we don't use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in our English translations. Therefore, the words He choose [sic] will not be the words in any English translation.

 

[Rippon]

I have been thinking about your argument for the dynamic equivalence of the NIV.

I said nothing about dynamic equivalence in the NIV. You must have confused me with another Rippon. ;-)

the point that I do see in your posts is that if words become meaningless in a language then it is meaningless to use them to communicate in a translation.

Huh? I argued no such thing. It's like you are responding to another poster altogether

Thinking of words that have pretty much become meaningless (foreign outside of the Church, and perhaps a little to “common” or taken for granted within the church) I believe I can find several. These include the one’s I’ve been trying to use as an example and others (e.g., atonement, propitiation, sin, righteousness, sanctification, holy, etc.).

All of those words but propitiation are present in the NIV.

I do understand the difficulty and necessity of communicating to a contemporary audience.

Good.

I do not understand some of the choices in the NIV, and this on me and not necessarily the translators. An example would be translating meno (“abide” or “remain”). The word appears about 38 times in the Gospel and epistles of John.

I read where it occurs 42 in the Gospel of John.

The ESV translates it “abide” all but once (where it translates it “continues”).

It uses "continued" in 1 John 2:19.

The NIV translates it “remain”,” last”, “live”, “lives”, “continue”, “be”, and leaves it out in 1 John 3:15.

Also "remains","remained","lives","continues" etc. In 1 John 3:15 it has "resides."

 

[JonC]

I said nothing about dynamic equivalence in the NIV. You must have confused me with another Rippon. ;-)

Huh? I argued no such thing. It's like you are responding to another poster altogether

I do apologize, I guess I am guilty of what I believe the NIV translators have done (my interpretation of your thoughts were off - at least your words are here so I can see my error :smilewinkgrin.

As the NIV uses a distinctly different method of interpretation than the ESV, NASB, etc. ("transparent" vs dynamic equivalence), what exactly is the reason you advocate the NIV over the ESV (other than, of course, the NIV is easier to read...that is not a good argument as Dean Koontz is easier to read than the NIV...or to be fair, The Message is an easier read than the NIV).

 

[Rippon]

Another example would be 1 Peter 3:15’s use of Isaiah 8:13. This I have mentioned (the changing of “sanctify” to “set apart,” which I would be good with if it included “as holy.”). My reasoning is twofold. First, “set apart” does not mean “sanctify.” Second, without indicating to sanctify or set apart as holy, the verse loses its connection to Isaiah 8:13.

Have you forgotten so soon Jon? As I have said, the NIV has "in your hearts revere Christ as Lord." Isaiah 8:13 reads :"The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."

Are you under the impression that ties between the Old Testament and the New have to read identically?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

However I primarily use the KJV/NKJV which are more literal than the ESV in my open air.

Not true. It is shown in side by side translations through the use of good lexicons that the NASB and the ESV get the gist of any given passage far more accurately than the KJV, though the KJV is still a powerful translation and very effective in the ministry.

 

[Rippon]

I do apologize, I guess I am guilty of what I believe the NIV translators have done

Okay...

As the NIV uses a distinctly different method of interpretation than the ESV, NASB, etc.

No Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV and ESV are very much alike although the ESV suffers from a lot of awkward,unnatural English. And the NIV is still more closely aligned with the NASBU than it is with the translations on the right side of the spectrum.

("transparent" vs dynamic equivalence),

The ESV is not so transparent as you apparently think. And the NIV is not a dynamic equivalent version though it uses more than the ESV and NASBU.

what exactly is the reason you advocate the NIV over the ESV

It is the best all round English Bible translation. It is a mediating version along with the HCSB,NET,ISV,NAB etc. It's right in the middle. It has things in common with the ESV,NRSV,NASBU & Co. as well as the NLT. It does read well, but it's not easy reading. The NLTse reads even more clearly. The scholarship is top-notch. It has beaten all comers for years. And it really is an international Bible version.

I like aspects of a number of English Bible translations such as the MLB, Norlie, NLTse, NASBU, Phillips, NRSV, NJB, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Lattimore, HCSB. The REB is my favorite as far as elegance goes. However, the NIV has the best elements of the former ones. And it has its share of weaknesses too, as all translations have. But all in all, it demonstrates its versatility in covering most of the bases need in a good Bible translation.

 

[Rippon]

Jon, it's strange. I am having problems quoting you. I can pull up your post 77 which I have already commented upon, but I can't quote your post #81. I have tried multiple times. I can quote posts by others, but not you. I will try again at another time.

I still can't quote from your post # 81 and I don't know why!