What is your opinion on the ESV, NIV, and the Good News Version?

[Godisgracious1031]

Dear fourm,

I would like to know your opinion on the English Standard Version (any edition), New International Version (any edition), and the Good News Version (also known as the Bible for modern man.)

Thanks,

Shawn

 

[John of Japan]

ESV: Good and literal, but not from my preferred Greek text, the Byzantine. And why did we need another English translation at that time in history when there are still 3000 or so languages and dialects with no Scripture?

NIV: Done with a conservative dynamic/functional equivalence method, so not that literal in many places. However, due to good style editors, very good English. However, why did we need another English translation at that time in history when there are still 3000 or so languages and dialects with no Scripture?

Good News Bible, GNB: The NT translator was the liberal Baptist scholar Robert Bratcher, commissioned to do the very first dynamic equivalence translation by Eugene Nida, the method's inventor. Here is a link about Bratcher's liberalism: Good News Bible translator dies; opposed inerrantists: Robert Bratcher supported dynamic equivalence.

Again about Bratcher's liberalism, his first edition (which I have) translated "death" instead of "blood" in several key passages, such as in Col. 1. A scholar of mine asked him personally why, and he put down the idea that Christ's blood is important in our salvation, and that doctrine is old and out of date. (Apologies to my friend if I didn't get that exactly right and he ever reads this!). There was such an outcry about this that editions after that always translated "blood."

The GNB is an absolutely awful translation. One of the assignments for the Bible Translation Theory and Practice course I teach is to compare a passage of the GNB to the Greek. The students are always amazed at how awful this version is!

 

[Deacon]

The NIV is not a favorite of mine. I used it to teach from for a few years since many of the adult students used it. It is a goodgeneral “vanilla” Bible with only a few nuts. It should be among those you use when comparing versions.

ESV - I’ve used it in the past and am currently using it. It follows the KJV tradition of translations but uses the Critical Greek text. IMO there’s a slight lean towards Reformed Theology. Should be among the top few when comparing texts.

GNV - I’ve never used it, I don’t use it when comparing versions.

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Dear fourm,

I would like to know your opinion on the English Standard Version (any edition), New International Version (any edition), and the Good News Version (also known as the Bible for modern man.)

Thanks,

Shawn

The GNB is a terrible translation! At my former church, when I was teaching a kids' class, there was a move to teach then from the GNB. When I looked at some of the memory verses that we had given the children in the GNB, I found that the translation bore no relationship to the Greek. Unfortunately, I was the only one who knew any Greek, and the others decided to carry on with it. I resigned from the teaching team and later left the church.
The 1984 NIV is/was an OK translation. We still use it at my church, and although it is not as strictly accurate as I would like, it reads very smoothly, and I haven't had any real problems preaching from it. The newer version has some definite improvements, but its gender-neutral stance, particularly the use of the plural, sometimes results in possible references to Christ being obliterated. The ESV is the best of your three, but I like the NKJV.

 

[37818]

I am opposed to the ESV.

The ESV follows the RSV in mistranslation of Revelation 13:8,
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

 

[JesusFan]

I am opposed to the ESV.

The ESV follows the RSV in mistranslation of Revelation 13:8,
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

Best of the 3 translations asked about, would say that Esv, Nkjv, and nasb would be the best 3 current versions to do serious bible studying from fort the christian today

 

[JesusFan]

ESV: Good and literal, but not from my preferred Greek text, the Byzantine. And why did we need another English translation at that time in history when there are still 3000 or so languages and dialects with no Scripture?

NIV: Done with a conservative dynamic/functional equivalence method, so not that literal in many places. However, due to good style editors, very good English. However, why did we need another English translation at that time in history when there are still 3000 or so languages and dialects with no Scripture?

Good News Bible, GNB: The NT translator was the liberal Baptist scholar Robert Bratcher, commissioned to do the very first dynamic equivalence translation by Eugene Nida, the method's inventor. Here is a link about Bratcher's liberalism: Good News Bible translator dies; opposed inerrantists: Robert Bratcher supported dynamic equivalence.

Again about Bratcher's liberalism, his first edition (which I have) translated "death" instead of "blood" in several key passages, such as in Col. 1. A scholar of mine asked him personally why, and he put down the idea that Christ's blood is important in our salvation, and that doctrine is old and out of date. (Apologies to my friend if I didn't get that exactly right and he ever reads this!). There was such an outcry about this that editions after that always translated "blood."

The GNB is an absolutely awful translation. One of the assignments for the Bible Translation Theory and Practice course I teach is to compare a passage of the GNB to the Greek. The students are always amazed at how awful this version is!

The esv reads still similar enough to the Kjv/Nkjv to be familiar to be used, and would see the 1984 Niv as much superiors to that 2011 gender inclusive revision edition

 

[37818]

Best of the 3 translations asked about, would say that Esv, Nkjv, and nasb would be the best 3 current versions to do serious bible studying from fort the christian today

I have all three, ESV, NASB and NKJV among my print Bible translations. And others. Currently I would primarily would recommend the NKJV or NASB, depending. I use the KJV and Strong's numbers as a primary study source. But I do check for known variants. NT and OT [& LXX].




.

 

[John of Japan]

The esv reads still similar enough to the Kjv/Nkjv to be familiar to be used, and would see the 1984 Niv as much superiors to that 2011 gender inclusive revision edition

ESV is not from the Byzantine. I've read it through but don't generally use it.

Agreed that the first NIV is superior to that 2011 gender inclusive version, but still faulty.

 

[37818]

I am opposed to the ESV.

I also oppose the NIV [2011] and GNB more than the ESV.

 

[Deacon]

I’ve warmed up considerably to the gender-sensitive translations. The more recent translations are superior to the earlier ones.

Footnotes for gendered passages that may be interpreted prophetically might be helpful.
Even the earliest English translations recognized the difficulty of translating gendered words.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I also oppose the NIV [2011] and GNB more than the ESV.

IMO, “oppose” is quite a strong word when considering that even the GNB can be considered God’s Word.

Rob

 

[JesusFan]

ESV is not from the Byzantine. I've read it through but don't generally use it.

Agreed that the first NIV is superior to that 2011 gender inclusive version, but still faulty.

Would say that there would be a definite need to have a Translation based upon the Majority text for today!

 

[JesusFan]

IMO, “oppose” is quite a strong word when considering that even the GNB can be considered God’s Word.

Rob

about as much as the Original LB and the Message could be

 

[37818]

IMO, “oppose” is quite a strong word when considering that even the GNB can be considered God’s Word.

Rob

I didn't think so. I have disagreement with both transactions. Used ,"oppose" because I really didn't want to list every issue.

 

[Dr. Bob]

ESV is not from the Byzantine. I've read it through but don't generally use it.

And THAT is the reason I generally use the ESV - translated from far better Greek texts than the very flawed Byzantine copies of copies of copies that I find inferior. (still love ya, John )

 

[Conan]

I wish there was a New American Standard Version, Byzantine Text Edition.

NASB Byzantine edition.

 

[John of Japan]

IMO, “oppose” is quite a strong word when considering that even the GNB can be considered God’s Word.

Rob

Okay, let's try: I do not recommend these translations.

 

[John of Japan]

I wish there was a New American Standard Version, Byzantine Text Edition.

NASB Byzantine edition.

That would be great!

 

[John of Japan]

And THAT is the reason I generally use the ESV - translated from far better Greek texts than the very flawed Byzantine copies of copies of copies that I find inferior. (still love ya, John )

Well, now, I have mixed feelings about that post! Anyway, still love ya, Dr. Bob, in spite of your confusion on the text issue.