NIV vs. ESV, Part 2

[McCree79]

How so? When she speaks, she speaks with wisdom.



You're changing the meaning of the text. It doesn't say "when she speaks she is wise".



Sure, but that has nothing to do with this verse.

She opens her mouth with wisdom. Wisdom causes her to open her mouth.

Changing the meaning of the text is my point. is easy to take the NIV as she speaks wisdom. Esv, to me, shows she speaks because of wisdom.

As far as opening the mouth when you shouldn't.... The opposite of opening you mouth out of wisdom, would be opening you mouth unwisely. So, the comment is still valid and can be learned from this verse.

 

[Yeshua1]

She opens her mouth with wisdom. Wisdom causes her to open her mouth.

Changing the meaning of the text is my point. is easy to take the NIV as she speaks wisdom. Esv, to me, shows she speaks because of wisdom.

As far as opening the mouth when you shouldn't.... The opposite of opening you mouth out of wisdom, would be opening you mouth unwisely. So, the comment is still valid and can be learned from this verse.

So which translation do you prefer to use then?

 

[McCree79]

So which translation do you prefer to use then?

I am ok with either. I think both reflect biblical teachings. The NIV and ESV are 2 of my 3 favorite translations(NASB95 is the other). I personally prefer ESV. However the NIV, overall, is an easier read.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Ecclesiastes 1:8 (NRSV) --

All things are wearisome;
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
or the ear filled with hearing. ​

Very similar to the ESV --

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.​

Third and fourth lines are the same with one letter exception ("n" of "nor" rather than "or"). The ESV's "nor" is better, IMHO. But I think the first two lines (and especially the second) of the NRSV are better than the ESV rendering.

 

[Rippon]

Ecclesiastes 1:8 (NRSV) --

All things are wearisome;
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
or the ear filled with hearing.
​

Very similar to the ESV --

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
​

Third and fourth lines are the same with one letter exception ("n" of "nor" rather than "or"). The ESV's "nor" is better, IMHO. But I think the first two lines (and especially the second) of the NRSV are better than the ESV rendering.

NIV :
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

 

[InTheLight]

Very similar to the ESV --

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
​

OK, ESV--if a man cannot utter that "all things are full of weariness", how come Solomon just did so?

And why does it have to be so complicated, "a man cannot utter it" vs. NIV's simpler, "more than one can say"?

 

[Rippon]

Ecc.1:2

NIV : Meaningless
HCSB : Absolute futility
ISV : Utterly pointless
NET : Futile
ESV and most older translations have vanity which doesn't communicate as well today.

1:13
NIV : I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind.

ESV : And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.

The ESV gets a little too wordy in the second sentence --twice as many words as the NIV.

1:16b

NIV : I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge

ESV : my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge

 

[InTheLight]

Text from the sermon yesterday was from Psalm 10. A couple of things I noticed as I read along in the NIV and compared to the ESV.

Poor vs. Weak
Poor vs. Helpless

NIV: In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, (v. 2)
ESV: In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor; (v. 2)

What is the best word here: "weak" or "poor"?

(and why the clumsy phrase 'hotly pursue' instead of 'hunt'. Compare with v. 8 & 9 where the lion ambushes its prey rather than "hotly pursue" it. I like the NIV's 'hunt' better here.)

NIV: He lies in wait to catch the helpless; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net. (v. 9)
ESV: he lurks that he may seize the poor; he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.

What is the best word here: "helpless" or "poor"?

I thought it interesting that whatever the original word is in these two verses the ESV renders it "poor" both times while the NIV has either "weak" or "helpless". Obviously, a poor person is not necessarily weak or helpless, so I like the NIV here.

 

[rlvaughn]

Ecclesiastes 1:8 (NRSV) --

All things are wearisome;
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
or the ear filled with hearing. ​

Very similar to the ESV --

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.​

Third and fourth lines are the same with one letter exception ("n" of "nor" rather than "or"). The ESV's "nor" is better, IMHO. But I think the first two lines (and especially the second) of the NRSV are better than the ESV rendering.

Nor sounds better to me as well, but I sometimes get confused on the proper grammatical use of "nor."

 

[McCree79]

Text from the sermon yesterday was from Psalm 10. A couple of things I noticed as I read along in the NIV and compared to the ESV.

Poor vs. Weak
Poor vs. Helpless

NIV: In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, (v. 2)
ESV: In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor; (v. 2)

What is the best word here: "weak" or "poor"?

(and why the clumsy phrase 'hotly pursue' instead of 'hunt'. Compare with v. 8 & 9 where the lion ambushes its prey rather than "hotly pursue" it. I like the NIV's 'hunt' better here.)

NIV: He lies in wait to catch the helpless; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net. (v. 9)
ESV: he lurks that he may seize the poor; he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.

What is the best word here: "helpless" or "poor"?

I thought it interesting that whatever the original word is in these two verses the ESV renders it "poor" both times while the NIV has either "weak" or "helpless". Obviously, a poor person is not necessarily weak or helpless, so I like the NIV here.

According to Mounce's Lexicon the word "ani" is best translated poor, needy, afflicted, oppressed. Often referring to person of low status or lacking in resources.

The other word in question is daloq, which means to hunt, chase or pursue.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Here's another example of clumsy text in the ESV.

All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
Psalms 22:7 ESV

"Make mouths at me"? What? I have mental images of people with their jaws dropped, making kissy-lipped mouths, maybe baring their teeth.

"Wag their heads"? What? What are they, dogs?


Here's the easily understood NIV:

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
Psalm 22:7 NIV


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[TCassidy]

Here's another example of clumsy text in the ESV.

All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
Psalms 22:7 ESV

"Make mouths at me"? What? I have mental images of people with their jaws dropped, making kissy-lipped mouths, maybe baring their teeth.

"Wag their heads"? What? What are they, dogs?


Here's the easily understood NIV:

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
Psalm 22:7 NIV

The problem is that is not what the Hebrew says. "They shoot out the lip to laugh" בְ֝שָׂפָ֗ה (with the lip) יַלְעִ֣גוּ לִ֑י (to laugh) יַפְטִ֥ירוּ (they shoot out.)

and "they wag the head." יָנִ֥יעוּ means the same thing as a dog will "wag its tail."

 

[InTheLight]

Sure, idioms that would be understood by people way back in that era. But when translating into today's english I think the NIV has better clarity.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had occasion to look at Romans 8:7 in the NIV (1984) just recently. 'The sinful mind is hostile to God.' The problem is that the word translated 'sin' is not hamartia which is the usual word, but sarkos, 'of flesh,' 'carnal.'

I don't think the ESV is a whole lot better: 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God.' There is no word for 'set' in the Greek, and I think that, like the NIV, it is missing the point. It is the fleshly mind, the unconverted, unspiritual mind, the mind that does not know God, the mind that is not born from above (John 3:6), that is hostile to God. Even converted people can sometimes, to their (our?) shame, have their minds seduced by carnal, worldly things (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:1-4). But the people described in Romans 8:7 are unconverted, as the context shows.

So for me, the KJV and NKJV are best: 'The carnal mind is enmity against God.' It might be argued that 'enmity' is an old-fashioned word, but its semantic range includes 'hatred,' so I think it works well as a translation of echthra.

I don't have the new NIV, so it's quite possible that the translation has been improved. No doubt someone will tell me.

 

[InTheLight]

I don't have the new NIV, so it's quite possible that the translation has been improved. No doubt someone will tell me.

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
Romans 8:7 NIV


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
Romans 8:7 NIV
.

Thank you. That is a big improvement. The NIV is now very similar to the ESV, although I still think the KJV/NKJV is better. There is, of course no Greek word for 'governed by' in any manuscript.

 

[Rippon]

Thank you. That is a big improvement. The NIV is now very similar to the ESV, although I still think the KJV/NKJV is better. There is, of course no Greek word for 'governed by' in any manuscript.

Are you aware that there are hundreds of words that the NKJV uses which have no equivalence in the original? It's just part and parcel of the translation process. Sometimes "extra“ words are needed and sometimes less words are needed to communicate to the target audience.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you aware that there are hundreds of words that the NKJV uses which have no equivalence in the original? It's just part and parcel of the translation process. Sometimes "extra“ words are needed and sometimes less words are needed to communicate to the target audience.

Yes, having taken a degree in ancient languages, I'm aware that words sometimes have to be added in translation in order to make sense. However,as the NKJV shows, it is not necessary here. Moreover (along with the NASB) very helpfully italicizes most of the words it adds so that people are aware. I find this very beneficial.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, having taken a degree in ancient languages, I'm aware that words sometimes have to be added in translation in order to make sense. However,as the NKJV shows, it is not necessary here. Moreover (along with the NASB) very helpfully italicizes most of the words it adds so that people are aware. I find this very beneficial.

Every other English translation avoids italicsmania. I wonder how many versions in other languages do it? It sure is a faulty mentality. As I said earlier, what do you do when a translation (say the NKJV) uses less words than the Greek original? You can't rely on italics. The whole idea is fraught with weakness.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Every other English translation avoids italicsmania. I wonder how many versions in other languages do it? It sure is a faulty mentality. As I said earlier, what do you do when a translation (say the NKJV) uses less words than the Greek original? You can't rely on italics. The whole idea is fraught with weakness.

Well I find it extremely helpful.