-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Yeah, this thread is almost 4 years old
those : on 215 occasions
human : 98 times
their : 78
they : 64
them : 40
children :16
humankind :14
any : 12
themselves : 11
believers : 10
people : 10
ancestor : 8
In the switch from the TNIV the 2011 NIV added these words:
Man : 133 more times
his : 101 more times
men : 49
him : 49
he : 43
fellow : 38
brother 17
son : 17
himself : 12
father 6
All of the above is a snip of what Mr. Slowely uncovered.
________________________________________________________
Another gentleman by the name of John Dyer did research as well. He said that the 2011 NIV uses the same words as the 1984 edition 91.37% of the time.
In the Old Testament these are the books that had above 90% word correlation between the old and the new:
Gen.
Ex.
Nu.
Deut
Judges
Ruth -Esther (10 books)
Song of Songs --Obadiah (10 books)
Micah,Nahum, and Habakkuk (3 books)
Haggai and Zach (2 books)
That's 30 books that had more than a 90% correspondence.
So 9 books fell under 90% --but 7 of them were more than 87%.
The book of Proverbs was the lowest at 81.72%.
_________________________________________________________
In the New Testament 11 books were over 90%:
Matthew --Acts (5 books)
2 Cor.
2 Tim.
Heb.
2 John
Jude
Rev.
Twelve books were above 87%.
2 Thess. was the lowest at 85.56 %
Three other books fell under 87%.
_____________________________________________________
Do you think that any deviation from the 84 edition is automatically wrong? If so, what exactly makes the 84 edition the standard by which we measure accuracy of translation?
In the switch from TNIV to the current NIV it removed, among other words:I really appreciate Robert Slowley's painstaking and comprehensive work in listing all the verses in the canon and showing the differences (if any) with the 1984 NIV,TNIV and the 2011 NIV.
those : on 215 occasions
human : 98 times
their : 78
they : 64
them : 40
children :16
humankind :14
any : 12
themselves : 11
believers : 10
people : 10
ancestor : 8
In the switch from the TNIV the 2011 NIV added these words:
Man : 133 more times
his : 101 more times
men : 49
him : 49
he : 43
fellow : 38
brother 17
son : 17
himself : 12
father 6
All of the above is a snip of what Mr. Slowely uncovered.
________________________________________________________
Another gentleman by the name of John Dyer did research as well. He said that the 2011 NIV uses the same words as the 1984 edition 91.37% of the time.
In the Old Testament these are the books that had above 90% word correlation between the old and the new:
Gen.
Ex.
Nu.
Deut
Judges
Ruth -Esther (10 books)
Song of Songs --Obadiah (10 books)
Micah,Nahum, and Habakkuk (3 books)
Haggai and Zach (2 books)
That's 30 books that had more than a 90% correspondence.
So 9 books fell under 90% --but 7 of them were more than 87%.
The book of Proverbs was the lowest at 81.72%.
_________________________________________________________
In the New Testament 11 books were over 90%:
Matthew --Acts (5 books)
2 Cor.
2 Tim.
Heb.
2 John
Jude
Rev.
Twelve books were above 87%.
2 Thess. was the lowest at 85.56 %
Three other books fell under 87%.
_____________________________________________________
Do you think that any deviation from the 84 edition is automatically wrong? If so, what exactly makes the 84 edition the standard by which we measure accuracy of translation?
All translations are guilty of this to an extent. The more dynamic the translation, the more it can happen, but even literal translations do it from time to time.
Correct, as there is just no way to have a transaltion get ALl that the original languages was staing to us, but also think that the more literal the translation philosophy is, the more closer to getting what was actually recorded down to us...
Not saying tht the Nasb is ALWAYS superior to the Niv ,as there are indeed passages where it is much easier to grasp/get what was said in the niv, but also think the most important thing a transaltion needs to give us is what really said, not what we assume/think what was meant!
"What we assume/think was meant" --come on now. First of all your use of the pronoun "we" is puzzling. Professional Bible scholars translate --not "we" the laypeople. Secondly, they --the translators, do not assume or think was was meant in a given passage. They study and labor to convey not only what was said --but what it meant because the two can be different. Take the many idioms in the Old Testament for example. Would you have translators put the face value of words in the text like "my kidneys were aflame" --really now.but also think the most important thing a transaltion needs to give us is what really said, not what we assume/think what was meant!
"What we assume/think was meant" --come on now. First of all your use of the pronoun "we" is puzzling. Professional Bible scholars translate --not "we" the laypeople. Secondly, they --the translators, do not assume or think was was meant in a given passage. They study and labor to convey not only what was said --but what it meant because the two can be different. Take the many idioms in the Old Testament for example. Would you have translators put the face value of words in the text like "my kidneys were aflame" --really now.
I was thinking more of theose passages where it might make for "wooden" reading, but was more in line with the greek sentence structure...
Most renderings in the ESV do not follow the original sentence structure, nor would it be a wise thing to do. What takes priority? A)Being faithful to the original word order and syntax or B)to render a passage as accurately as possible? If you reply:"Both" then you don't understand. It is almost impossible to accomplish both A and B at the same time. Interlinears are not true translations. They try to mimic the original sentence sturture and syntax but can only do it around 80% of the time or a bit more. I wouldn't call interlinears 'accurate' by any stretch.I was thinking more of those passages where it might make for "wooden" reading, but was more in line with the Greek sentence structure...
A snip from the NIV preface follows:
"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."
The above applies to all good translations. But the publicity blurbs of the ESV do not acknowledge the reality of it's actual translation method. The ESV translation really follows the snip in its translational methodology.
Most renderings in the ESV do not follow the original sentence structure, nor would it be a wise thing to do. What takes priority? A)Being faithful to the original word order and syntax or B)to render a passage as accurately as possible? If you reply:"Both" then you don't understand. It is almost impossible to accomplish both A and B at the same time. Interlinears are not true translations. They try to mimic the original sentence sturture and syntax but can only do it around 80% of the time or a bit more. I wouldn't call interlinears 'accurate' by any stretch.
A snip from the NIV preface follows:
"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."
The above applies to all good translations. But the publicity blurbs of the ESV do not acknowledge the reality of it's actual translation method. The ESV translation really follows the snip in its translational methodology.
For the serious study of the Bible, using an english version, would indeed stick to ones such as the Nkjv/Nas/Asv would be a better fit then either the niv/esv, but that either of them would be useful to use also!
For the serious study of the Bible, using an english version, would indeed stick to ones such as the Nkjv/Nas/Asv would be a better fit then either the niv/esv, but that either of them would be useful to use also!
For a serious study the NKJV is better than the KJV. The NASBU would be good. The ASV would be awkward.
One can do serious studies with the ESV,HCSB and NIV. Even the NLTse can be used for the same purpose.
The point is --don't just use one,but several. And these days there is so much information available on the internet that Bible study helps are very plentiful.
,For a serious study the NKJV is better than the KJV. The NASBU would be good. The ASV would be awkward.
One can do serious studies with the ESV,HCSB and NIV. Even the NLTse can be used for the same purpose.
The point is --don't just use one,but several. And these days there is so much information available on the internet that Bible study helps are very plentiful.
We agree on that, as one of my teachers in school stated that one should always have a literal version, like a nasb, one like the Niv, for comparison studying....
Our own BB member Deacon (Rob) said on 7/12/2013 :"For serious study the NLT is an excellent tool and a worthy translation in the understanding of Scripture."For the serious study of the Bible, using an english version, would indeed stick to ones such as the Nkjv/Nas/Asv would be a better fit then either the niv/esv, but that either of them would be useful to use also!
There are many times where the TNIV and 2011 NIV rendering are identical. But to disabuse anyone of the notion that the majority of those cases involve inclusive language -- I will submit these snips involving very minor differences with the 1984 NIV.I really appreciate Robert Slowley's painstaking and comprehensive work in listing all the verses in the canon and showing the differences (if any) with the 1984 NIV,TNIV and the 2011 NIV.
The 1984 snip will be at the top with a reference and the TNIV/2011 snip below.
The first unit will deal with some references in Genesis.
1:8
expanse
vault
2:3
And
Then
2:9
And the
The
2:14
Asshur
Ashur
2:21
and
and then
3:4
surely
certainly
4:7
master
rule over
5:7
And after
After
5:24
walked with
walked faithfully
Psalms
2:3
fetters
shackles
2:5
Then he
He
2:8
Ask of me
Ask me
5:2
Listen
Hear
5:3
in expectation
expectantly
6:3
anguish
deep anguish
7:2
tear me
tear me apart
7:11
expresses
displays
8:1
above
in
Revelation
1:1
of
from
1:3
reads
read aloud
2:9
know
know about
2:13
even
not even
5:7
came
went
5:13
singing
saying
8:7
upon
on
9:5
given power
allowed
9:13
horns
four horns
Continuing The Theme
There has been so much of a big deal made about the differences between the text of the 84 NIV contrasted with the text of the 2011 NIV. In reality most of the differences are quite minor;and most are not related to inclusive language.
As in my prior post, I will cite instances in a few books of the canon where the current NIV reading is indentical with the TNIV. The renderings of my snips (it's not necesary to quote entire verses) differ with the 84 edition --but alters nothing substantial of the meaning.
The 84 rendering will be on top and the TNIV/2011 reading below.
Exodus
1:9 : 1984 edition : much
TNIV/2001 NIV : far
1:22
boy
Hebrew boy
3:1
desert
wilderness
4:8
miraculous signs
sign
4:18
go back
return
5:21
upon...a stench
on...obnoxious
6:14
Hanoch...Carmi
Hanok...Karmi
6:21
Zicri
Zikri
8:4
will go up on you
will come up on you
Job
1:11
stretch
now stretch
1:12
hands
power
2:7
top
crown
2:9
holding on to
maintaining
3:5
darkness and deep shadow
gloom and utter darkness
3:14
counselors
rulers
3:16
hidden
hidden away
3:19
the slave is freed from his master
the slaves are freed from their owners
5:8
if it were I
if I were you
Jude
1
by
for
6
own home
proper dwelling
21
Keep
keep
24
falling
stumbling
There has been so much of a big deal made about the differences between the text of the 84 NIV contrasted with the text of the 2011 NIV. In reality most of the differences are quite minor;and most are not related to inclusive language.
As in my prior post, I will cite instances in a few books of the canon where the current NIV reading is indentical with the TNIV. The renderings of my snips (it's not necesary to quote entire verses) differ with the 84 edition --but alters nothing substantial of the meaning.
The 84 rendering will be on top and the TNIV/2011 reading below.
Exodus
1:9 : 1984 edition : much
TNIV/2001 NIV : far
1:22
boy
Hebrew boy
3:1
desert
wilderness
4:8
miraculous signs
sign
4:18
go back
return
5:21
upon...a stench
on...obnoxious
6:14
Hanoch...Carmi
Hanok...Karmi
6:21
Zicri
Zikri
8:4
will go up on you
will come up on you
Job
1:11
stretch
now stretch
1:12
hands
power
2:7
top
crown
2:9
holding on to
maintaining
3:5
darkness and deep shadow
gloom and utter darkness
3:14
counselors
rulers
3:16
hidden
hidden away
3:19
the slave is freed from his master
the slaves are freed from their owners
5:8
if it were I
if I were you
Jude
1
by
for
6
own home
proper dwelling
21
Keep
keep
24
falling
stumbling
There has been so much of a big deal made about the differences between the text of the 84 NIV contrasted with the text of the 2011 NIV. In reality most of the differences are quite minor;and most are not related to inclusive language.
As in my prior post, I will cite instances in a few books of the canon where the current NIV reading is indentical with the TNIV. The renderings of my snips (it's not necesary to quote entire verses) differ with the 84 edition --but alters nothing substantial of the meaning.
The 84 rendering will be on top and the TNIV/2011 reading below.
Exodus
1:9 : 1984 edition : much
TNIV/2001 NIV : far
1:22
boy
Hebrew boy
3:1
desert
wilderness
4:8
miraculous signs
sign
4:18
go back
return
5:21
upon...a stench
on...obnoxious
6:14
Hanoch...Carmi
Hanok...Karmi
6:21
Zicri
Zikri
8:4
will go up on you
will come up on you
Job
1:11
stretch
now stretch
1:12
hands
power
2:7
top
crown
2:9
holding on to
maintaining
3:5
darkness and deep shadow
gloom and utter darkness
3:14
counselors
rulers
3:16
hidden
hidden away
3:19
the slave is freed from his master
the slaves are freed from their owners
5:8
if it were I
if I were you
Jude
1
by
for
6
own home
proper dwelling
21
Keep
keep
24
falling
stumbling
There still seems to be no real valid reason why there was the 2011 edition though, other then to redo the gender issues, to coreect the 'so called' male bias some perceived in there!
You don't bother to read or retain information. That's why you ask your incessant series of questions that you have asked over and over again.There still seems to be no real valid reason why there was the 2011 edition though,
The changes for the NIV were based upon the following factors:changes in English, progress in scholarship and concern for clarity. Just about all Bible versions have revisions and updates --aside from notable exceptions like the Weymouth,Phillips,Darby etc.
other then to redo the gender issues, to coreect the 'so called' male bias some perceived in there!
You need to "coreect" your spelling and grammar. It's long overdue for revision.
Have you forgotten that the 2011 NIv took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV? Why don't you think things out before typing?
Wayne Leman diod some research on 16 Bible translations. His work is:Gender Inclusive language in English Bible Versions: A Quantified Study.
The following chart was at the conclusion. It surveyed 106 verses with respect to gender inclusive renderings or lack thereof.
CEV : 89.6%
NRSV : 87.7%
NCV : 83%
NLT : 82.1%
TNIV : 80.2%
TEV : 79.2%
GW : 79.2%
NET : 59%
ISV : 52.4%
HCSB : 33.0%
ESV : 27.4%
NIV : 20.8%
NASB : 17.1%
NKJV : 15.1%
RSV : 10.4%
KJV : 4.7%
____________________________________________________
The 2011 NIV is probably around the high 60s -low 70s percentile range.
You don't bother to read or retain information. That's why you ask your incessant series of questions that you have asked over and over again.
The changes for the NIV were based upon the following factors:changes in English, progress in scholarship and concern for clarity. Just about all Bible versions have revisions and updates --aside from notable exceptions like the Weymouth,Phillips,Darby etc.
You need to "coreect" your spelling and grammar. It's long overdue for revision.
Have you forgotten that the 2011 NIv took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV? Why don't you think things out before typing?
Wayne Leman diod some research on 16 Bible translations. His work is:Gender Inclusive language in English Bible Versions: A Quantified Study.
The following chart was at the conclusion. It surveyed 106 verses with respect to gender inclusive renderings or lack thereof.
CEV : 89.6%
NRSV : 87.7%
NCV : 83%
NLT : 82.1%
TNIV : 80.2%
TEV : 79.2%
GW : 79.2%
NET : 59%
ISV : 52.4%
HCSB : 33.0%
ESV : 27.4%
NIV : 20.8%
NASB : 17.1%
NKJV : 15.1%
RSV : 10.4%
KJV : 4.7%
____________________________________________________
The 2011 NIV is probably around the high 60s -low 70s percentile range.
Think the 1984 Niv had it closer to what it should be though!
And the truth is that English has not really changed so much in past 50 yeras that we cannot understand the bible in English of that era, but that many were " dumbed down" and made unable to read it with understanding!
As I can read the 1977 Nasb/1984 Niv, and clearly understand what God wants to share with me still!
You are one confused and confusing fella. English has indeed undergone changes in the last 50 years. You haven't been paying attention. It doesn't mean we can't understand things written a half century ago. It just means for the sake of extra clarity Bible translations need to speak with the vernacular of the people.Think the 1984 Niv had it closer to what it should be though!
And the truth is that English has not really changed so much in past 50 yeras [sic]that we cannot understand the bible in English of that era, but that many were " dumbed down" and made unable to read it with understanding!
There you go again with your "dumbed-down" talk. What versions have been dumbed-down? You speak offensively.
Well good. Was your sentence fragment that insightful to merit an exclamation mark?As I can read the 1977 Nasb/1984 Niv, and clearly understand what God wants to share with me still!
You are one confused and confusing fella. English has indeed undergone changes in the last 50 years. You haven't been paying attention. It doesn't mean we can't understand things written a half century ago. It just means for the sake of extra clarity Bible translations need to speak with the vernacular of the people.
There you go again with your "dumbed-down" talk. What versions have been dumbed-down? You speak offensively.
Well good. Was your sentence fragment that insightful to merit an exclamation mark?
There was really no necessity to have the Niv/Nasb/Esv/Hcsb updated/revised, as their latest versions before that were all just fine!
No improvements are necessary? They were originally perfect? Come on. Every translation needs to be periodically updated --every single one. It's common sense. Luther revised his own translation five times and Tyndale revised his a few times as well. The latter would have done it more times had he lived a little longer. He was only 42 when he was strangled and burnt alive.There was really no necessity to have the Niv/Nasb/Esv/Hcsb updated/revised, as their latest versions before that were all just fine!
Last edited by a moderator:
No improvements are necessary? They were originally perfect? Come on. Every translation needs to be periodically updated --every single one. It's common sense. Luther revised his own translation five times and Tyndale revised his a few times as well. The latter would have done it more times had he lived a little longer. He was only 42 when he was strangled and burnt alive.
Agree that one should revise them when they have a revised textual basis, have new important information on words/meanings from the original languages, but the 2011 Niv did not really reflect any of that, just was updated for gender rendering issues!
Not saying that is now not a decent version, but just that the 1984 was superior...