NIV or ESV?

[Van]

Hi IntheLight, thanks for addressing the topic.

The ESV2001 reads ...Jesus looking at him with sadness..., suggests Jesus was looking with sadness at him. Hence, the 2007 update, Jesus, seeing he had become sad, .... As far as you not seeing any way it could be misconstrued, fine, but the ESV translation team changed the wording for some reason.

Yes, the NIV is clearer than the ESV, and the NASB is clearer than the ESV. The ESV makes Luke 1:15 needlessly obscure.

Bottom line neither the ESV nor NIV should be used for your primary study bible, as both mistranslate many more verses than the NASB, NET and HCSB, Sometimes the NIV is better than either the NASB or ESV, and sometimes the ESV is better than the NIV, but the ESV is usually the same or worse than the NASB95.

 

[InTheLight]

Hi IntheLight, thanks for addressing the topic.

The ESV2001 reads ...Jesus looking at him with sadness..., suggests Jesus was looking with sadness at him. Hence, the 2007 update, Jesus, seeing he had become sad, .... As far as you not seeing any way it could be misconstrued, fine, but the ESV translation team changed the wording for some reason.

Yes, the NIV is clearer than the ESV, and the NASB is clearer than the ESV. The ESV makes Luke 1:15 needlessly obscure.

Bottom line neither the ESV nor NIV should be used for your primary study bible, as both mistranslate many more verses than the NASB, NET and HCSB, Sometimes the NIV is better than either the NASB or ESV, and sometimes the ESV is better than the NIV, but the ESV is usually the same or worse than the NASB95.

Hmmm... I only have the online version of the ESV which says copyright 2001, and here's what it says:

4 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
English Standard Version (ESV)

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001

 

[Van]

Hmmm... I only have the online version of the ESV which says copyright 2001, and here's what it says:

4 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
English Standard Version (ESV)

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001

Yes, click on the 2007 update link I provided in an earlier post (post # 156) and note you have the 2007 updated version, not the original 2001 wording. The reason for the update appears to avoid confusion as to who was sad.

 

[Van]

Lets take a brief look at Romans 10:10.

What is the difference between believing something in your heart, and confessing it with your mouth? There is an old story about an itinerant tightrope walker who comes to town, and puts up posters, saying see me walk across the arroyo, or whatever danger spot was available.

When he had a crowd, he would say, how many think I can walk across and back on the rope. A very few hands went up. So off he went, shaking and hollering but he barely makes it there and back. Next he brinks out a wheel barrel, and asks how many think he can walk across and back with the wheel barrel. A few more hands go up, and sure enough he makes it both ways. Now he asks, how many think he can wheel a person across and back. Now the crowd is getting into it. Yes they shout and up go almost all the hands.

So he says, ok, who is first? The crowd grows silent. This is the difference between believing Jesus can save, and putting your trust in Jesus to save you. None would confess with their mouth. And do not be mislead here, this concerns the character of our faith, i.e. all in, rather than faith plus the work of verbal confession. That view is heresy.

God knows our hearts, our beliefs and true convictions, whether we believe parachutes can save us or whether we would trust one and jump out of a plane.

And when God discerns we not only believe, but also are willing to put our life in His hands, then He transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. So when we confess Jesus as Lord (code for God Almighty) and believe in our hearts Jesus was raised from the dead (code for being the Messiah, Redeemer, Savior sent by God) God credits our wholehearted faith as righteousness and transfers us spiritually into Christ. Which takes us to our verse,

...for with the heart man believes into righteousness (or justification). Moreover with the mouth man confesses (or avows) into salvation.

It takes both core convictions, for God to credit our faith as righteousness and put us in Christ. Both faith in Jesus as God and as Savior are required of us before God will credit our faith as righteousness and put us into Christ.

Now lets turn to the ESV’s mistranslation of Romans 10:10, where the Greek preposition “eis” (meaning into) is changed (syntactical transformation) into the verb “is.” So instead of believing in our heart into righteousness or resulting in righteousness we get “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth on confesses and is saved. See the difference? It is subtle. As translated by the ESV, one could argue or believe that confessing and believing are proofs of prior justification and salvation, because the order of actions is left to inference.

 

[Rippon]

Bottom line neither the ESV nor NIV should be used for your primary study bible, as both mistranslate many more verses than the NASB, NET and HCSB, Sometimes the NIV is better than either the NASB or ESV, and sometimes the ESV is better than the NIV, but the ESV is usually the same or worse than the NASB95.

When an edition of a translation has been around for nearly 20 years like the NASB it's called the NASB. All this time when you've spoken of the virtues of the ESV as contrasted, in your opinion, with the problems of the NIV and ESV --did you always have in mind the pre-95 NASB --the 77 version? It's confusing because this post of yours is the first time where you are distinguishing at first the NASB, and then the 95 NASB.

You denounce and demean the ESV and NIV as "worthless" many times. Then you note how you think they are good. Here you say "the ESV is usually the same or worse than the NASB95." You are all over the place. It's like you can't make up your mind. You have always regarded the NASB (again the pre-95 edition, or the 95?) highly in contrast to the Calvinistically inspired ESV and NIV. Now you are saying that the ESV is usually the same as the NASB95. You further note that the ESV sometimes worse. You seem to have stepped back from your absolutist stance.

I can't account for your unique thought processes. Are you reconsidering your views?

Is it possible for you to acknowledge that your denigration of the ESV and NIV in multitudes of posts were completely off-base and non-Christian in character?

 

[Van]

Anytime I refer to the NASB, I am referring to the NASB95. This is my study bible.

I have presented many many verses where both the NIV and ESV mistranslate the inspired text.

Did I say the NIV or ESV were "Calvinistically inspired?" Nope, so yet another example of shuck and jive, of misdirection, misrepresentation.

I did say the NLT, ESV and NIV are all Calvinistically biased, as demonstrated by numerous verses mistranslated to alter the text in accord with Calvinistic preconceptions, for example Revelation 13:8.

I also said the NIV and NLT have more Calvinistically mistranslated verses than the ESV.

Is it possible for you to acknowledge that your denigration of the ESV and NIV in multitudes of posts were completely off-base and non-Christian in character?

I documented the mistranslations, many pouring Calvinistic doctrine into the text. Please address specifics rather than continuing your wholesale devotion to logical fallacy, i.e. arguing against Van's character and behavior.

 

[Rippon]

I can't account for your unique thought processes. Are you reconsidering your views?

Is it possible for you to acknowledge that your denigration of the ESV and NIV in multitudes of posts were completely off-base and non-Christian in character?

Again Van,address the above.

 

[Yeshua1]

Anytime I refer to the NASB, I am referring to the NASB95. This is my study bible.

I have presented many many verses where both the NIV and ESV mistranslate the inspired text.

Did I say the NIV or ESV were "Calvinistically inspired?" Nope, so yet another example of shuck and jive, of misdirection, misrepresentation.

I did say the NLT, ESV and NIV are all Calvinistically biased, as demonstrated by numerous verses mistranslated to alter the text in accord with Calvinistic preconceptions, for example Revelation 13:8.

I also said the NIV and NLT have more Calvinistically mistranslated verses than the ESV.

I documented the mistranslations, many pouring Calvinistic doctrine into the text. Please address specifics rather than continuing your wholesale devotion to logical fallacy, i.e. arguing against Van's character and behavior.

Actually, many would tend to see that the 1977 edition of the Nasb would be closer/more literal to the original languages then the 1995 revision!

And again, how did the Niv get all of those calvinistic renderings in there, since more of the translators came from either arminian/non cal viewpoint?

And again, by what creditials are you able to point out to us those "obvious" calvinistic errors in both esv/Niv, are you skilled in the greek/hebrew well enought o show why there were always choosing the wrong way?

 

[Van]

You tell me Yeshua1, I referenced the specific verses, please explain why they were mistranslated to be more Calvinistic in the NIV except because of preconceived bias.

Truth is not based on the credentials of the presenter, anyone can put forth truth and it stands on its own.

1) From means from, not before. Even a 5th grader knows that. Yet you deny it.

2) Nouns are not verbs. Even a 5th grader knows that. Yet the ESV mistranslates nouns as verbs time and again. Ditto for prepositions.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NKJV, NET, HCSB, and WEB.

 

[Rippon]

Yet the ESV mistranslates nouns as verbs time and again. Ditto for prepositions.

"How often, for example, have I taken second-year Greek students aside and explained at length how rarely a Greek participle should be rendered by an English participle,how many of the Greek connectives must find no formal equivalence in a specific English word but survive in the flow of the English sentence, and so forth." (D.A. Carson : The Limits of Functional equivalence in Bible Translation)

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles,

Every time you say that your post value decreases. It's now at level -4.5 and falling fast.

 

[Van]

Some believe the grammar and syntax informs the message, and to ignore that part of the message is to mistranslate the scripture. Those that do try to present every nuance (i.e. grammar and syntax) of the inspired text, translate from as from and not before, and translate nouns as nouns and not as verbs, and prepositions as prepositions rather than as verbs.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 have been shown in verse after verse to be worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB and HCSB. Yes, sometimes the NIV will present the actual message with more clarity, and sometimes the KJV will present the message with more clarity, but those examples are few and far between.

 

[Yeshua1]

You tell me Yeshua1, I referenced the specific verses, please explain why they were mistranslated to be more Calvinistic in the NIV except because of preconceived bias.

Truth is not based on the credentials of the presenter, anyone can put forth truth and it stands on its own.

1) From means from, not before. Even a 5th grader knows that. Yet you deny it.

2) Nouns are not verbs. Even a 5th grader knows that. Yet the ESV mistranslates nouns as verbs time and again. Ditto for prepositions.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NKJV, NET, HCSB, and WEB.

Again, what is your level of expertise in understanding biblical Greek/hebrew?

For you to be able to understand and refute what they translated, should be well versed in those things!

 

[Van]

I never make any claim of expertise, as truth does not rest on logical fallacy. Your whole approach, questioning the level of expertise, is a logical fallacy argument.

I understand from does not mean before. I understand nouns are not verbs. I understand prepositions are not verbs.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NKJV, NET, HCSB and WEB. Yes, sometimes the NIV will present the actual message with more clarity, and sometimes the KJV will present the message with more clarity, but those examples are few and far between.

 

[go2church]

Uh, thanks but nope

 

[Van]

I am reminded of the story of a man held as a POW for years. All he had was a wriggled out of focus picture of his family. One day he was returned home, and upon seeing his actual family, took the poor likeness of the original, and threw it away, behold the new has come.

Sticking with the NIV2011 or the ESV2011 with all their flaws, and continuing to study the out of focus picture, is without merit.

1) From means from and not before
2) Nouns should be translated as nouns, not verbs.
3) Prepositions should be translated as prepositions, not verbs.
4) Grant means to allow, not enable with irresistible grace.
5) If translators added to the text, the added words should be in italics.​

 

[Rippon]

I never make any claim of expertise,

Yet your ungodly pronouncements of several Bible translations come from a vainglorious kind of a guy.

With all your daily abuse for all that's holy and right have you forgotten what you said on 9/6/2012?

"I think the NIV 2011 would be fine for a pew Bible."

You are a hypocrite --and especially so since you belong to a church in which the NIV is used in preaching and teaching. Fly your true colors at your church or get out of it --if it differs so radically with your convictions. Would church members be surprised with all the hate you spew here on the BB unceasingly? Are you a two-faced person?

 

[Van]

Yet your ungodly pronouncements of several Bible translations come from a vainglorious kind of a guy.

With all your daily abuse for all that's holy and right have you forgotten what you said on 9/6/2012?

"I think the NIV 2011 would be fine for a pew Bible."

You are a hypocrite --and especially so since you belong to a church in which the NIV is used in preaching and teaching. Fly your true colors at your church or get out of it --if it differs so radically with your convictions. Would church members be surprised with all the hate you spew here on the BB unceasingly? Are you a two-faced person?

All Calvinism has to offer are those who insult and slander and make up contradictions. Note the absence of thread topic content.

I documented several of the mistranslations found in the NIV2011, and I documented several of the mistranslations found in the ESV2011. I pointed out several mistranslations that altered the text to mesh better with Calvinism.

Sticking with the NIV2011 or the ESV2011 with all their flaws, and continuing to study the out of focus picture, is without merit.

1) From means from and not before
2) Nouns should be translated as nouns, not verbs.
3) Prepositions should be translated as prepositions, not verbs.
4) Grant means to allow, not enable with irresistible grace.
5) If translators added to the text, the added words should be in italics.​

If you look back at post #176, will you find brotherly love, gentle rebuke, and incisive commentary on merits of the NIV or ESV?

 

[Yeshua1]

All Calvinism has to offer are those who insult and slander and make up contradictions. Note the absence of thread topic content.

I documented several of the mistranslations found in the NIV2011, and I documented several of the mistranslations found in the ESV2011. I pointed out several mistranslations that altered the text to mesh better with Calvinism.

Sticking with the NIV2011 or the ESV2011 with all their flaws, and continuing to study the out of focus picture, is without merit.

1) From means from and not before
2) Nouns should be translated as nouns, not verbs.
3) Prepositions should be translated as prepositions, not verbs.
4) Grant means to allow, not enable with irresistible grace.
5) If translators added to the text, the added words should be in italics.​

If you look back at post #176, will you find brotherly love, gentle rebuke, and incisive commentary on merits of the NIV or ESV?

Any bible version has some problems inherit within them though, and either the Niv/esv are good to use as study versions, just would also use a nasb/Nkjv/Hcsb along with them!

And again, how did the Niv get so mistranslated, as most of the scholars were not reformed/calvinists even?

 

[Rippon]

Nouns should be translated as nouns, not verbs.
Prepositions should be translated as prepositions, not verbs.

No, not necessarily. Even NET notes are against you on that.

Dave Brunn in his book One Bible, many Versions has said : "Every version changes some of the original words to nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or multiple-word phrases." It's impossible to have a one-to-one correspondence much of the time.

If translators add to the text, the added words should be in italics.

No, that would be an impossible task. The original KJV tried that. Subsequent KJV editions have added many more words and put them into italics. The NASB and HCSB use italics or brackets for the ostensible purpose of indicating that certain words weren't found in the original but are necessary to make the English understandable. However, as I said, the task is an impossible and also an impractical one. There are way too many places where italics would have to be employed than are currently used. It's pointless. The original languages and English are different. There is not a one-to-one correspondence much of the time. Besides, it would be an optical nightmare.

If you insist on it, despite all rationality, what do you do with all the untranslated words which every translation leaves out? Are you going to put a note saying the orginal word is " ___" but we can't translate that,so to be honest we'll just indicate its absence in our text.

Back on 12/1/2011 you said :"Most italic [sic] words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification."

Well, again, I think the use of italics makes no sense. Yet those words supplied by the translator have to be "added" in order for a given passage to make sense. Think about it. Some of the words in italics are : {is},{are},{shall} and {even}. If you leave those words out of a passage the English would suffer enormously.

To make things plain for you : The use of italics are an entirely bad idea. They are an unworkable construct despite a noble purpose behind the idea. No translation in existence has fully carried out italicization for the whole canon --it can't be done. So why even attempt to go half way?

 

[Van]

More disinformation from the fount. ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it. In the vast majority of cases, you can line out the italized additions and the text still presents the message with clarity, sometimes with greater clarity.