The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV

[Rippon]

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.

I went through 13 books in the New Testament and just pulled out *some* select snippets comparing the older TNIV with the latest new NIV. I didn't itemize every verse -- just a number from 13 NT books so far.

When I started the process I didn't intend to put the ESV in the mix. But then decided it would be interesting.

Later I might get specific with a listing of the snips. But presently I'd like to simply catalog my findings so far.

Remember, the select snips are culled from 13 NT books.This simple survey involves segments of only 92 verses.

E = ESV
T = TNIV
N =2011 NIV

I found that the TNIV snips (not entire verses -- just the isolated important parts)were identical with the ESV wording on 18 occasions.In 5 more cases the wording was almost the same.

The 2011 NIV wording was identical with the ESV 14 times. In 13 additional places the wording was almost like the ESV.

So there is nothing definitive so far with my limited sampling. There are still 42 other cases where the wording of both the TNIV and 2011 NIV do not bare a resemblance with the ESV.

Perhaps I'll pick up a trend if I choose to go through the remaining 14 books of the NT canon in my limited manner.

In Summary:

E= T 18 times

E approximates T 5 times

_______________________________________________

E = N 14 times

E approximates N 13 times

_______________________________________________

In the rest of the 42 verses there was no similarity to the ESV from either the TNIV or 2011 NIV.

 

[BobinKy]

Nice summary.

When you post your complete findings, I hope you include the NIV 1984.

...Bob

 

[Rippon]

In Summary:

E= T 18 times

E approximates T 5 times

_______________________________________________

E = N 14 times

E approximates N 13 times

_______________________________________________

In the rest of the 42 verses there was no similarity to the ESV from either the TNIV or 2011 NIV.

Now I've gone through another book in the New Testament which brings the number of verses I've looked at to 112.

E = T 25 times
E approximates T 8 times
_____________________________________

E = N 15 times
E approximates N 13 times

_____________________________________

In the remaining 51 verses there is no similarity to the ESV from either the TNIV or 2011 NIV.

 

[Rippon]

I will list some snippets which demonstrate that the 2011 NIV uses better English than the TNV. The TNIV did have some instances of out-dated and cumbersome English. Back in 2007 I had sent in several hundred suggestions for improvement in the New Testament TNIV.

The following examples will show that the 2011 uses standard,contemporary English in contrast to the TNIV.

From the book of Mark :

9:48
T : their worm does not die [same as ESV]
N : the worms that eat them do not die

14:19
T : surely not I?
N : Surely you don't mean me?

14:37
T : Could you not [same as ESV]
N : Couldn't you

From the book of Luke :

1:16
T : Many of the people of Israel will he bring back
N : He will bring back many of the people of Israel

1:38
T : May it be to me according to your word. [Almost the same as ESV]
N : May your word to me be fulfilled.

8:6
T : Some fell on rock
N : some fell on rocky ground

10:30
T : he fell into the hands of robbers
N : he was attacked by robbers

21:12
T : They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons
N : They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison

22:18
T : of the fruit of the vine
N : from the fruit of the vine

23:18
T : With one voice they cried out
N : But the whole crowd shouted

24:24
T : but him they did not see
N : but they did not see Jesus

From the book of Acts :

11:22
T : News of this reached the ears of the church [ESV almost the same]
N : News of this reached the church

17:4
T : and not a few [ESV is the same]
N : and quite a few

19:24
T : no little business [ESV is the same]
N : a lot of business

27:23
T : an angel of the God whose I am
N : an angel of the God to whom I belong [Same as ESV]

From the book of Romans :

2:15
T : their thoughts now accusing,now even defending them
N : their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them
[The TNIV rendering is awkward with "now' being repeated.]

3:8
T : as we are slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say
N : as some slanderously claim that we say
[I don't know how the TNIV rendering here made it into that NIV up-date]

7:24
T : from this body of death [Same as ESV]
N : from this body that is subject to death

11:12
T : will their fullness bring
N : will their full inclusion bring

11:13
T : I make much of my ministry
N : I take pride in my ministry
[The 2011 rendering is a big improvement.]

15:28
T : received this fruit
N : received this contribution

From the book of 1 Corinthians :

9:7
T : eat of its grapes ... drink of the milk
N : eat its grapes ... drink the milk

11:28
T : drink of the cup [Same as ESV]
N : drink from the cup

16:16
T : submit to such as these [Same as ESV]
N : submit to such people

 

[TomVols]

People would be surprised (well, not many...most already know this) that the ESV and NIV (thus TNIV) were identical in places. As is the NASB with the ESV.

There's another good thread on here about comparing the TNIV with NIV. Check it out. I'd love to spend more time doing comparison (I did a few early on) but this is a busy time for me. I'm eager to get a print copy of the new NIV.

 

[TC]

I'm eager to get a print copy of the new NIV.

I am also looking forward to getting one.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...
From the book of Mark :

9:48
T : their worm does not die [same as ESV]
N : the worms that eat them do not die

From the book of Luke :

8:6
T : Some fell on rock
N : some fell on rocky ground

These two just popped out at me. There are not any Greek words to support "that eat them" in Mark 9:48; nor is there a Greek word to correspond to "ground" in the Luke referrence. Do we KNOW that the worms are there to eat them? Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil? Is that really acceptable 'translation'? If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere. Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.

 

[Rippon]

There are not any Greek words to support "that eat them" in Mark 9:48;

Yes,worms eat dead bodies.

nor is there a Greek word to correspond to "ground" in the Luke referrence.

Haven't you heard sermons about the Parable of the Soils? The earth that some seeds fell on was rocky soil or ground. There was just a thin layer of earth on top of rock below.

Do we KNOW that the worms are there to eat them?

That's what worms do Franklin.

Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil?

I doubt it.

Is that really acceptable 'translation'?

Maybe you don't accept it -- but I doubt that it is as objectionable as you are making it to be.

If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere.

That's not acceptable.

Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.

Their are various kinds of translations as you well know. The 2011 NIV is a bridge between the more functionally equivalent and the more form-driven ones.I wouldn't call these two snips embellishments but clarifications. The KJV,NASB,ESV and other versions have done the same at times.

 

[Baptist4life]

These two just popped out at me. There are not any Greek words to support "that eat them" in Mark 9:48; nor is there a Greek word to correspond to "ground" in the Luke referrence. Do we KNOW that the worms are there to eat them? Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil? Is that really acceptable 'translation'? If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere. Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.

Very well put. IMHO, a translation should be just that, not an interpretation.

 

[Rippon]

Very well put. IMHO, a translation should be just that, not an interpretation.

All Bible translations involve interpretation. You're only fooling yourself to think otherwise.

 

[Rippon]

... nor is there a Greek word to correspond to "ground" in the Luke referrence [sic]. Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil? Is that really acceptable 'translation'? If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere. Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.

Your take on what you consider a "commentary" on the verse in Luke is all the more mysterious because in a parallel in Mark 4 that is a fuller treatment -- it describes the seed sown on rocky ground.Some translations have stony ground,rocky places. I consulted a wide variety of translations Darby,KJV,Wycliffe,NASB,ISV,Weymouth and HCSB just to name a few.
There is no mistranslation or theological aberration going on. Methinks you are too quick on your trigger there Franklin. But then,perhaps that's my intrepretation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Your take on what you consider a "commentary" on the verse in Luke is all the more mysterious because in a parallel in Mark 4 that is a fuller treatment -- it describes the seed sown on rocky ground.Some translations have stony ground,rocky places. I consulted a wide variety of translations Darby,KJV,Wycliffe,NASB,ISV,Weymouth and HCSB just to name a few. ...

Let me say right off that I really don't intend to dwell on this topic; however, the discussions are little sparse at present on the BB.

No, "my take" is not made "mysterious" by the existence of parallel passages. Parallel passages should have no bearing on the translation in another book. The Greek word in Mark (& Matthew) is a altogether a different word; the versions have correctly rendered that word as "rocky places" in those books.

On the other hand, the KJV/NKJV/ASV/RSV/ESV have "rock" in Luke. Young and Darby have "rock". The older NIV has "rock". These versions only have "rock" because that is all there is in Greek. Luke says what he says. Why can't he speak with his own voice? (guided by the Holy Spirit, of course) Should we impose upon his account even more details from the others? By this reasoning then we ought bring to the attention of the reader of Luke the fact that this parable was delivered by Jesus "by the sea" (according both Matthew & Mark). God forbid! That would be the homogenization of Scripture.

Surely you agree that every unique detail from each Gospel should NOT be inserted into all the others. But this is what the new NIV has done. Yes, it is a small infraction. But if it begins with just a little, or only occassionally, where will it stop? And, it seems that God wanted us to have different words for these accounts from which we can often learn much.

Similarly, the TR is rightly criticized for inserting text from latter chapters of Acts forward into a parallel account without actual Greek manuscript support in those places.

 

[TomVols]

All translations involve interpretation to a degree. However, more literal ones will do so less than those that are more dynamic in nature. So everyone's right to an extent. 1 Tim 3:11's gunaikas is a good example. The old NIV (and KJV, NKJV, ESV, NET, and old HCSB - not sure about the revised one) all translate the word as "wives" or "their wives." While one can make an argument for translation as the root can mean either, the addition of "their" is clearly an interpretative rendering. The new NIV (and NASB, NRSV, et.al.) renders it simply as "Women," leaving the reader to determine whether the women are the wives of deacons, deacons, or another class of women servants.

You can be overly literal. You can also over-interpret. Context is everything.

There...I think I ticked off everyone

 

[Rippon]

KJV/NKJV/ASV/RSV/ESV have "rock" in Luke. Young and Darby have "rock". The older NIV has "rock". These versions only have "rock" because that is all there is in Greek. Luke says what he says.

Yes, it is a small infraction. But if it begins with just a little, or only occassionally, where will it stop?

From Luke 8:6

NASBU : rocky soil
GW : rocky soil
ISV : stony ground
MLB : bedrock
NIrV : rocky places
NAB : rocky ground

No theological aberration is going on. These are acceptable translations -- not commentary on the text. Franklin -- you are too quick on your trigger to label legit translations as less than desirable.

 

[TCGreek]

Good stuff!

 

[annsni]

From Luke 8:6

NASBU : rocky soil
GW : rocky soil
ISV : stony ground
MLB : bedrock
NIrV : rocky places
NAB : rocky ground

No theological aberration is going on. These are acceptable translations -- not commentary on the text. Franklin -- you are too quick on your trigger to label legit translations as less than desirable.

Wouldn't the question be "what does the word say" rather than "how do other versions interpret the word"?

 

[franklinmonroe]

From Luke 8:6

Wyclif : a stoon
Tyndale : on ston
Coverdale : on stone
Matthew's : the stone
Great : on stone
Bishops' : on stones
Geneva : the stones
Rotherham : the rock
Weymouth : the rock
Goodspeed : the rock
AMP : the rock
HCSB : the rock
NCV : on rock
New Jerusalem : on rock
TNIV : on rock
Message : the gravel

I could go on (and on)

 

[franklinmonroe]

From Luke 8:6

NASBU : rocky soil
GW : rocky soil
ISV : stony ground
MLB : bedrock
NIrV : rocky places
NAB : rocky ground

Not very convincing. As we both know, the ISV follows the GW so closely they virtually speak with one voice )neither is very high on my list of the best translations).

Sorry, but the MLB's "bedrock" is essentially a synonym for 'rock'! Even the NIrV's "rocky places" is marginally acceptable (since it is not 'rocky ground' or soil, earth, etc.).

So, you've added the normally reliable NASB and the NAB; and I was particularly disappointed in the NASB.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... No theological aberration is going on. These are acceptable translations -- not commentary on the text. Franklin -- you are too quick on your trigger to label legit translations as less than desirable.

For the record, I didn't assert that there was a "theological aberration". I do think that the new NIV's rendering of "rocky ground" amounts to commentary on Luke's text. And finally, I didn't label the new NIV as "less than desirable"; I haven't labled it at all. I am only commenting on some specific renderings.

 

[Rippon]

Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil? Is that really acceptable 'translation'? If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere. Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.

No,your charges are baseless. Having "stony soil" is quite acceptable and there is nothing theologically wrong or questionable about the rendering. I guess you'd call the NASBU interpretive as well since it lines up with the new NIV.