NIV or ESV?

[Rippon]

ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it.

You haven't disproven anything I said. No Bible translation has done a complete job of italicizing. None. Nowhere close. It is an impossibility.

By the way, the NET Bible, one of your favorites, doesn't use what you apparently think is a integral part of the translation process.

In the vast majority of cases, you can line out the italized [sic]additions and the text still presents the message with clarity, sometimes with greater clarity.

By "line out" you mean cross out?

Well, I guess you appreciate poor English if you would prefer to leave out the words in italics. If that's what floats your boat.

 

[Van]

You haven't disproven anything I said. No Bible translation has done a complete job of italicizing. None. Nowhere close. It is an impossibility.

Here we have yet another logical fallacy being foisted by a Calvinist, i.e. the idea if something cannot be done perfectly, it should not be done to the best of our ability. Fiddlesticks.

By the way, the NET Bible, one of your favorites, doesn't use what you apparently think is a integral part of the translation process.

Yes, this flaw in the ESV is shared with the NET. Another fallacy is the idea that two wrongs make a right.

Well, I guess you appreciate poor English if you would prefer to leave out the words in italics. If that's what floats your boat.

And we now get the third straight fallacy, that removal of most italicized words in the NASB results in poor English. Twaddle. In many cases the added words are extraneous and their removal improves the translation.

 

[Rippon]

Here we have yet another logical fallacy being foisted by a Calvinist,

Once again, this is not about Calvinism O obsessed one.

i.e. the idea if something cannot be done perfectly, it should not be done to the best of our ability. Fiddlesticks.

Thousands off words are not italicized in the text of the NASB.

From the NET preface:"...to documernt every departure [from the Greek and Hebrew] would be an exercise in futility."

And we now get the third straight fallacy, that removal of most italicized words in the NASB results in poor English. Twaddle. In many cases the added words are extraneous and their removal improves the translation.

Wrong again, Vanman.

Let's see how some snips of verses fare without the italicized words in the NASB.

Gen. 1:3 :"Let be light."
Ps. 130:6 : "My soul for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning;the watchmen for the morniong."
John 3:36 : "He who in the Son has eternal life."

 

[Yeshua1]

Once again, this is not about Calvinism O obsessed one.

Thousands off words are not italicized in the text of the NASB.

From the NET preface:"...to documernt every departure [from the Greek and Hebrew] would be an exercise in futility."


Wrong again, Vanman.

Let's see how some snips of verses fare without the italicized words in the NASB.

Gen. 1:3 :"Let be light."
Ps. 130:6 : "My soul for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning;the watchmen for the morniong."
John 3:36 : "He who in the Son has eternal life."

I am still trying to get from van why he can understand translations better then those on the teams that did the Esv/Niv though!

And also how did so much calvinistic biase get into the Niv, as a majority of them were NOT reformed/calvinists?

 

[Van]

Once again, this is not about Calvinism O obsessed one.

No one, repeat no one, said the fallacy being foisted was a doctrine of Calvinism, it was the fallacy, put forth by Calvinists, that if something cannot be done perfectly, we should not strive to do it to the best of our ability.

Thousands off words are not italicized in the text of the NASB.

No one, repeat no one, said all the words in the NASB are italicized.

From the NET preface:"...to document every departure [from the Greek and Hebrew] would be an exercise in futility."

Word for word translations can italicize added words, but when a more thought for thought method is used, then much of the translation would need to be italicized, truly an exercise in futility.

Wrong again, Vanman.

I say many of the italicized words are extraneous, and Rippon then provides a few examples where they are useful. Does twaddle capture the futility of Rippon's effort?

Folks, if you want to study scripture, use a word for word literal translation bible, and if the meaning is obscure, compare with more thought for thought translations to gather the big picture.

I use the NASB95, and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB, and HCSB. Once I think I have a handle on the general idea, I do word studies, how are the Greek words (or Aramaic or Hebrew) used by the same author, and in other books. My default assumption is the same author would use the same word in the same way, especially in close proximity, i.e. same book.

 

[Van]

I am still trying to get from van why he can understand translations better then those on the teams that did the Esv/Niv though!

And also how did so much calvinistic biase get into the Niv, as a majority of them were NOT reformed/calvinists?

The majority of translators, i.e. KJV, NKJV, WEB, NASB, NET, HCSB, and YLT do not support the Calvinistically mistranslated verses found in the NIV and ESV. They say from means from and not before.

The issue is not how did the mistranslations get in the ESV and NIV, the issue is do not study from mistranslations.

 

[Rippon]

No one, repeat no one, said the fallacy being foisted was a doctrine of Calvinism, it was the fallacy, put forth by Calvinists, that if something cannot be done perfectly, we should not strive to do it to the best of our ability.

Get off your Calvinist-obession. Stick with an individual poster's comments. It's not about perfection. It is the reality that italicization of all words that do not match up one-on-one with the words of the original is an impossibility. It cannot be done --and it is absurd to suggest such. And I had asked you --What do you do with the many instances where a word or several words untranslatable? Do you put a notation in brackets each and every time. As I said a visual nightmare would result. But leave it to Van to ok an impossible monstrosity.

No one, repeat no one, said all the words in the NASB are italicized.

I'm just bringing it to your feeble attention.

Word for word translations can italicize added words,

And it would be truly pointless.

I say many of the italicized words are extraneous, and Rippon then provides a few examples where they are useful.

Van, I know honesty is not your strong suit --most of the time the italicized words are necessary to make intelligible English. It's just as plain as day and yet you want to deny the facts.

My default assumption is the same author would use the same word in the same way,

You assume too much Van. What about John's use of the word cosmos in his Gospel? It is certainly not used in the same way each and every time. As I have repeatedly told you --context alone determines the meaning --not a lexicon.

 

[Yeshua1]

The majority of translators, i.e. KJV, NKJV, WEB, NASB, NET, HCSB, and YLT do not support the Calvinistically mistranslated verses found in the NIV and ESV. They say from means from and not before.

The issue is not how did the mistranslations get in the ESV and NIV, the issue is do not study from mistranslations.

Were those "mistranslations" done intenionally to support calvinism then?
And do you know enough of the greek/hebrew to be able to discern where they made their mistakes?

 

[Rippon]

Were those "mistranslations" done intenionally to support Calvinism then?

If Van was honest, he would have to give an emphatic no. That is, if he was honest.

And do you know enough of the Greek/Hebrew to be able to discern where they made their mistakes?

If Van was honest he would have to give a resounding no as the answer here. If he was honest is the operative word.

 

[Van]

Were those "mistranslations" done intenionally to support calvinism then?
And do you know enough of the greek/hebrew to be able to discern where they made their mistakes?

Once again we have a Calvinist pretending he cannot read. Both mistranslations of Revelation 13:8 and James 2:5 were done intentionally. The basis was posted already, yet the question is now re-asked. Shuck and jive, folks, shuck and jive.

Next the Calvinist makes the silly argument you need to understand Greek to discern from does not mean before or chosen rich in faith does not mean chosen to be rich in faith.
Calvinism is defended by denial of the obvious. LOL

And then we get another Calvinist suggesting if I disagree, why I am not honest. Good Golly Miss Molly.

Folks, both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB and HCSB. The NASB is far from perfect but it does the best at presenting the underlying text, including the grammar and word meaning arrangement, and so is the choice for study not only among lay people but also among scholars. And a bible without italicized words should rejected as a study bible because that indicates rather massive deviation from the underlying text.

 

[Rippon]

No translation was intentionally done to insert Calvinistic doctrines in the text. To insist on that would be dishonest.

Next the Calvinist makes the silly argument you need to understand Greek to discern from does not mean before or chosen rich in faith does not mean chosen to be rich in faith.
Calvinism is defended by denial of the obvious. LOL

Your constant dishonesty rears its ugly head again Van. How many mendacity pills do you take each day?

The question was :"Do you know enough Greek and Hebrew to be able to discern where the ESV and NIV translators made mistakes?" The answer, if you were honest, would be a clear no. But again, we can't count on your veracity.

And then we get another Calvinist suggesting if I disagree, why I am not honest. Good Golly Miss Molly.

Oh, my mistake. I was not "suggesting it" --I was clearly calling you out for your dishonesty.

Folks,

How many "folks" actually listen and heed your inane advice? As you like to say :Zip, zero, nada.

The NASB is far from perfect

Agreed.

And a bible without italicized words should rejected as a study bible because that indicates rather massive deviation from the underlying text.

Then you should condemn the Net Bible too because ...watch for it...It has no italics! Hmm... Therefore, according to your sage counsel it should be rejected "because that indicates rather massive deviation from the underlying text." If you follow your own advice you land in hot water Van. Perhaps that should clue you in and possibly you would avoid making foolhardy assertions.

 

[Van]

The case has been made, folk, that both the NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles. Those that disagree present nothing other than a "smear Van campaign" as if reliance upon one logical fallacy after another had merit.

 

[InTheLight]

The case has been made, folk, that both the NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles. Those that disagree present nothing other than a "smear Van campaign" as if reliance upon one logical fallacy after another had merit.

I don't think so. I enjoy my NIV study Bible and it has nothing to do with my opinion of you.

 

[Rippon]

I don't think so. I enjoy my NIV study Bible and it has nothing to do with my opinion of you.

As far as Van is concerned it's his world. You're just living in it.

He lives in contradictions. He habitually smears the ESV and NIV and feels he is righteously promoting his cause (though he has no followers). But when his tactics are exposed he claims a smear campaign has been launched against him. He can't for the life of him see his hyprocrisy.

 

[InTheLight]

As far as Van is concerned it's his world. You're just living in it.

He lives in contradictions. He habitually smears the ESV and NIV and feels he is righteously promoting his cause (though he has no followers). But when his tactics are exposed he claims a smear campaign has been launched against him. He can't for the life of him see his hyprocrisy.

Fine. Can we now get back to the premise of my OP, that is, which translation does a better job? And provide verses side-by-side to prove it.

 

[Van]

Hi In the Light, nothing anyone can do with an argument from personal incredulity. To love a "study bible" is not quite the same as to actually study God's word using your bible.

Lets pick a passage from Romans and do a study. Lets take Romans 10:9-10

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Questions that pop with just a quick glance:

1)Is there a difference between "declaring" something and "confessing" something?

2) Is there a difference between "declaring Jesus is Lord" and "confessing Jesus as Lord?"

3) Is there a difference between "you believe and are justified" and "believes, resulting in righteousness?"

4) Is there a difference between "profess your faith and are saved" and "confesses, resulting in salvation?"

 

[InTheLight]

Look at Matt. 23:15


Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. [ESV]

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. [NIV]

Look at these phrases. Which is easier to understand, easier to read, less clunky? I say NIV.

...to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte...
...to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded...

Really ESV--use the word proselyte twice?

For further comparison, here's how other translations handle it:

...to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one... NASB
...to win one proselyte, and when he is won... NKJV
.. to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one... HCSB

 

[Van]

To start, when a person declares something the idea is he openly presents the idea to others. But to confess carries the addition idea of agreeing or yielding oneself to another. For example, at trial, a person might say "Not Guilty" which would be to openly declare something, but another might say "Guilty" which means the person agrees with the charge. Thus to confess has within it the idea of holding nothing back, to fully and wholeheartedly confess Jesus as Lord of our life.

Your turn.

The issue is not that the ESV is worse than the NIV, I will concede, confess that conclusion.
The issue is that the NIV is worthless as a study bible, because God's message is altered time and again.

 

[InTheLight]

Hi In the Light, nothing anyone can do with an argument from personal incredulity. To love a "study bible" is not quite the same as to actually study God's word using your bible.

Lets pick a passage from Romans and do a study. Lets take Romans 10:9-10





Questions that pop with just a quick glance:

1)Is there a difference between "declaring" something and "confessing" something?

With the qualifying phrase, "with your mouth", no, there is not much of a difference.

2) Is there a difference between "declaring Jesus is Lord" and "confessing Jesus as Lord?"

With the qualifying phrase, "with your mouth", no, there is not much of a difference, even less of a difference than in #1.

3) Is there a difference between "you believe and are justified" and "believes, resulting in righteousness?"

Not really.

4) Is there a difference between "profess your faith and are saved" and "confesses, resulting in salvation?"

Not really.

The real question isn't if 'confess' is different than 'declare' or whatever, the question is which translation did a better job conveying the meaning to people.

Also, you are bringing up the NASB in a thread titled NIV vs. ESV.

 

[InTheLight]

The issue is not that the ESV is worse than the NIV, I will concede, confess that conclusion.
The issue is that the NIV is worthless as a study bible, because God's message is altered time and again.

No, the thread title is NIV vs. ESV, not "The NIV is Worthless as a Study Bible".

As part of the OP, the underlying question is: "Which translation does a better job at conveying the meaning to people?"