Interesting, isn't it? We Baptists only had a few things like Calvinism and eschatology to bicker about in the 18th and 19th centuries. Wow, now we have a whole lot more to argue about with the new translations. Now how did that happen exactly?
-
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!
The NIV Is In Good Company
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I find it odd that the subject of gender inclusiveness would be discussed in a thread about the NIV rather than in a thread about gender inclusive translations. The NRSV is also a gender inclusive translation, but it is primarily a formal equivalence translation while the NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation.
To pick back up on this thread....
Brother Smyth, I noticed your distain for the NIV per this post...
Brother Smyth, I noticed your distain for the NIV per this post...
Why do you not trust the ppl who produced the NIV 2011? I know it is not the Westcott & Hort CT, because both the NIV and ESV are based off of the it. I truly love the NIV and have been reading from an HCSB, which is another dandy translation. Thanks in advance.
I have no use for the NIV or HCSB. The NIV is too much of a paraphrase to be a good study Bible. And, the NIV 2011 panders too much to non-biblical values (such as gender neutrality) to be a good casual Bible. The HCSB is shamelessly filled with doctrinal bias and odd translation choices. You can see an example in reply #7 of this thread.
If you want an easy-to-read Bible, I suggest the NKJV or ESV (FYI, I'm not a huge fan of Westcott & Hort CT).
But doesn't the ESV use the Westcott & Hort CT? Or is there another CT?
I will have to graciously disagree with you and your assessment of the NIV. But you have every right to disagree with me, too.
I read the ESV a little, and it seems 'choppy'. I have a friend who lives in Myrtle Beach and pastors a reformed SBC and he loves the NIV...but I think he likes the 1984 version better. I have not read that edition, only the 2011. But he also said the ESV read 'choppy' to him, too. He said that very word I said...'choppy'. So much for great minds think alike.
But I am going to dig it out and read it some. It uses 'adjure', and that pastor friend of mine said he has a Master's Degree and had to look that word up. As I was reading the NASB the other day, I found that very same word...'adjure'.
Complicated question! The ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version edition of 1971 (using UBS 4th edition Greek New Testament) which was a revision of the Revised Standard Version edition of 1948/52 (edited using the NA17 Greek New Testament), which was a revision of the ASV of 1901 (which was based on the Westcott/Hort Greek New Testament of 1881) a revision of the English Revised Version of 1885 (which was also based on the W/H GNT of 1881).
So, the answer to your first question is "yes" and "no." The ERV/ASV was based on the W/H text, but all revisions were based on subsequent eclectic Greek texts. (All of which fall, generally, under the heading "Critical Text.")
Another CT? Well, yes. Several. NA is now in its 28th revised text and UBS is now in its 5th revised text.
Much of the early resistance to the ESV was due to it being a revision of the RSV which most of Conservative Evangelicalism rejected due to the "de-Christianizing" of some of the Old Testament (see Isaiah 7:14 for an example). However, the ESV corrects most of the passages in question.
I, being a Byzantine Priority Preferred fellow, am not a great fan of the ESV, but it is the pulpit bible in the church where we presently serve but we are allowed great soul liberty (love those Baptist Distinctives) so last week when I taught one of the adult Sunday School classes I used my NKJV, and this coming Sunday I will be preaching in the early, Traditional service from my trusty old KJV.
What's the difference in the W/H & NA transcripts...or are they manuscripts?
#confused
#confused
And what makes the UBS differ from the other two?
Another #confused
Another #confused
The Nestle-Aland text is intended for New Testament textual criticism and work in New Testament studies.
The United Bible Societies (UBS) text contains pretty much the same base text as NA. The primary difference between the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions is that the UBS is aimed at translators and so focuses on variants that are important for the meaning of passages where variants occur, whereas NA is aimed at textual critics and other scholars and so includes the relevant variants for that purpose (even if the meaning is not seriously impacted).
I can understand your confusion. This is a very confusing subject. After over 40 years of study I still sometimes throw my hands in the air and just walk away.
The first edition of NA, published by Eberhard Nestle in 1898, combined the readings of the editions of Constantin Tischendorf (the man who discovered Codex Sinaiticus at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai), Westcott/Hort, and Richard Weymouth (The Resultant Greek Testament, an eclectic text based on the work of eighteenth and nineteenth century textual critics), placing the majority readings of these in the text and the variant readings in the textual apparatus. In 1901, he replaced the Weymouth New Testament with Bernhard Weiss's text ( A New Text of the Greek New Testament).
So, NA is a departure from the WH text edited using the works of the other three men.
The United Bible Societies had its start as the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804 and slowly merged with other bible societies to eventually form UBS. The publisher of NA, (the German Bible Society), is a member society of UBS and the primary editors of the UBS 5 were members of that Society (Barbara and Kurt Aland).
So, in your opinion, of all the manuscripts available, which is most accurate?
Tough question. At least for the Gospel accounts I would nominate Codex Alexandrinus as the most accurate early Greek manuscript of the Gospels. Codex Angelicus, although a bit later, is an excellent example of Acts, the Church and Pauline Epistles.
Maurice Robinson has said that the NA agrees with W&H 95% of the time.
No, the exact opposite. Those very words are seen as excluding females. They are seen as exclusive --not inclusive.
No, it is not. It is a mediating translation as is the HCSB,NET,NAB and others. The NLT is more in the dynamic category.
You don't know what you prate on about.
Being gender accurate is not = to gender neutrality. What nonsense you engage in.
The NKJV and ESV are certainly NOT "easy-to-read" versions.A very easy to read translation is the NIrV. Just plain easy to read versions are the NLT,GWT,CEB etc.
And what in the world does W&H have to do with easy-to-read versions?
Yet you think that the rest of the N.T. that it includes, is inferior?
I would not characterize the Alexandrian textform as "inferior."
I believe the Byzantine textform is more likely to be closer to the original manuscripts than is the Alexandrian textform. However, those differences are, for the most part, insignificant and do not affect any doctrine of Christendom.