• 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 vs. ESV, Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
InTheLight said:
1 Peter 4:16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. [NIV]

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. [ESV]

Wow, ESV, you are C-L-U-N-K-Y ! !

ESV seems to be saying, "In the name of Christianity, I glorify you, oh Lord!"

Here's the NKJV for comparison's purposes.

16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. [NKJV]
Click to expand...
Actually I think the NIV OBSCURES the meaning in this instance. If you look at the way "Praise God" is used today, if you quickly read that, as I did, it does not say praise God as giving him glory, it read to me as "Praise God" you bear that name. As in Thank God you bear that name. Not give Him glory.

Now, the argument can be made that I should have read it closer and that was fair, but the ESV and NKJV make the meaning clear. We are to give Glory to God, we are to Glorify Him in our suffering. You potentially lose that in the NIV>
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually I think the NIV OBSCURES the meaning in this instance. If you look at the way "Praise God" is used today, if you quickly read that, as I did, it does not say praise God as giving him glory, it read to me as "Praise God" you bear that name. As in Thank God you bear that name. Not give Him glory.
Click to expand...

So, a #1. <sigh>

No...no. The difference in meaning between "thank" and "praise" is significant, not synonymous.

Now, the argument can be made that I should have read it closer and that was fair, but the ESV and NKJV make the meaning clear. We are to give Glory to God, we are to Glorify Him in our suffering. You potentially lose that in the NIV>
Click to expand...

Nowhere does that verse say that we are to glorify God for our suffering. It says we are to praise and glorify God for being called Christians, IF we are suffering. So glorify God if others call you a Christian. Obliquely, yes, being called a Christian could mean you were suffering.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
InTheLight said:
So, a #1. <sigh>

No...no. The difference in meaning between "thank" and "praise" is significant, not synonymous.



Nowhere does that verse say that we are to glorify God for our suffering. It says we are to praise and glorify God for being called Christians, IF we are suffering. So glorify God if others call you a Christian. Obliquely, yes, being called a Christian could mean you were suffering.
Click to expand...
I think you need to re-read what I wrote...
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
I think you need to re-read what I wrote...
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the use of the phrase, "praise God" as used in the NIV really means "thank God" in today's vernacular. I'm saying no, it means "praise God." Further you claim that the verse isn't saying "praise God you bear that name", yet that is exactly what it is saying--praise God that you are called a Christian.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
InTheLight said:
You are claiming that the use of the phrase, "praise God" as used in the NIV really means "thank God" in today's vernacular. I'm saying no, it means "praise God." Further you claim that the verse isn't saying "praise God you bear that name", yet that is exactly what it is saying--praise God that you are called a Christian.
Click to expand...
No, I did not say that is what it really means, I said that is the way people use it, flippantly, often. I agree on what it ACTUALLY means and anyone can see that from my post.

Now, the verse, in context, and yes, I know you are going to come back with a stupid #2 and I don't care at this point, is talking about suffering for the name of Christ. So in that real sense, YES it is saying to glorify God in your suffering. While the truth of praising God because you are a Christian is true, that is not what this verse is talking about specifically.

The ESV is clear on this. It says if you are suffering as a Christian, give glory to God for that suffering because you bear His name. Do not be ashamed of this. That is what the verse is talking about.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
No, I did not say that is what it really means, I said that is the way people use it, flippantly, often. I agree on what it ACTUALLY means and anyone can see that from my post.

Now, the verse, in context, and yes, I know you are going to come back with a stupid #2 and I don't care at this point, is talking about suffering for the name of Christ. So in that real sense, YES it is saying to glorify God in your suffering. While the truth of praising God because you are a Christian is true, that is not what this verse is talking about specifically.

The ESV is clear on this. It says if you are suffering as a Christian, give glory to God for that suffering because you bear His name. Do not be ashamed of this. That is what the verse is talking about.
Click to expand...
Would this passage be a good example why we should refer formal versions, as less interpreting what was meant is involved?
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
No, I did not say that is what it really means, I said that is the way people use it,
Click to expand...

Yes, hence my phrase "in today's vernacular". But the NIV doesn't say "thank God", it says, "praise God". So you are ascribing words people might use to words not in the NIV.

Now, the verse, in context, and yes, I know you are going to come back with a stupid #2 and I don't care at this point, is talking about suffering for the name of Christ. So in that real sense, YES it is saying to glorify God in your suffering. While the truth of praising God because you are a Christian is true, that is not what this verse is talking about specifically.
Click to expand...

No, the verse says "IF you are suffering", not "Since you are suffering". There is a difference.

The ESV is clear on this. It says if you are suffering as a Christian, give glory to God for that suffering because you bear His name. Do not be ashamed of this. That is what the verse is talking about.
Click to expand...

No, the verse doesn't say give God glory because you are suffering, it say give God glory because you are called a Christian. Suffering may or may not be a part of that. It says this in both the NIV and the ESV, though the ESV is clunky.

BTW, does the ESV get points for using more words than necessary?
"let him not be ashamed" --ESV
"do not be ashamed"--NIV
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
The Modern Language Bible of 51 years ago translates the verse almost exactly as the NIV :
MLB : but if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God because you bear that name.
The Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright : But if you suffer as a Christian, don't be ashamed; rather, give God the glory for that name!
NIrV : But suppose you suffer for being a Christian. Then don't be ashamed. Instead, praise God because you are known by the name of Christ.

The last rendering has to be plain to you. You've been ascribing things to this verse in the NIV that are not in the text.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
For the record, I am not against the NIV, but I do not believe it should by anyone's primary translation jus as I would say no functional equivalent should be anyone's primary.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
For the record, I am not against the NIV, but I do not believe it should by anyone's primary translation jus as I would say no functional equivalent should be anyone's primary.
Click to expand...

Who are you to make that determination? It is most certainly my primary translation. Get off your high horse. The CSB, NET, NAB, and NIV are mediating versions. You can toss in a few more such as the old MLB. The NLT could be someone's primary translation. And that would be fine.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Rippon2 said:
Who are you to make that determination? It is most certainly my primary translation. Get off your high horse. The CSB, NET, NAB, and NIV are mediating versions. You can toss in a few more such as the old MLB. The NLT could be someone's primary translation. And that would be fine.
Click to expand...
For serious study, if you do not know the original languages, you should choose a version that gets as close as possible and not use a version (for primary study) that has done interpretive work for you on a larger scale than formal equivalence.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
For serious study, if you do not know the original languages, you should choose a version that gets as close as possible and not use a version (for primary study) that has done interpretive work for you on a larger scale than formal equivalence.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised that your favorite version uses more functional equivalence that you currently know.

I use the NIV as my primary translation, but always use other versions to complement my understanding of the text. Plus I use commentaries after that.

Being as iteral as possible sometimes means less accurate than necessary.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
Who are you to make that determination? It is most certainly my primary translation. Get off your high horse. The CSB, NET, NAB, and NIV are mediating versions. You can toss in a few more such as the old MLB. The NLT could be someone's primary translation. And that would be fine.
Click to expand...
for serious studies, the formal versions are superior!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
You might be surprised that your favorite version uses more functional equivalence that you currently know.

I use the NIV as my primary translation, but always use other versions to complement my understanding of the text. Plus I use commentaries after that.

Being as iteral as possible sometimes means less accurate than necessary.
Click to expand...
Overall, formal translations are to be preferred for serious biblical studies....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top