thomas15
Well-Known Member
Well, if it makes you feel better, so be it. I guess I'm too much a dullard to get it.
-
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!
Why do so many reformed believers use the ESV?
- Thread starter wfdfiremedic
- Start date
- Status
Well, if it makes you feel better, so be it. I guess I'm too much a dullard to get it.
No, your wrong again. I am a conservative type with an appreciation for words and their proper meanings.
The NIV can't honestly be placed in the dynamic-equivalent side of the ledger. It is in between the two areas of DE and FE. And actually there is a continuum in all Bible translations. There are gradients all along the way. The ESV can be considered more FE than the NIV -- but it's a matter of degree -- the NIV is not a totally different kind of animal like you make it out to be.
Well, I'm here debating on this very issue!
I understand the Geisler reference, but not the Fee reference.
I am not changing meanings or making up new words here;although neologisms are fun.
I hope you don't interpret the ESV as poorly as you interpret my posts.
Is using the ESV primarily (or exclusively!) kind of a Reformed litmus test? If those who claim to Reformed use other versions such as the dreaded NIV or even *GASP*TNIV, are they to be considered under the ban?
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Allow me to clear this up for you, I probably shouldn't be so frank and I expect to get fried for this but anyway... To be reformed in the fullest sense, by this I mean 5 points and commited to covenant theology puts the believer on a higher intellectual plain than the adverage bear. Being smarter and better informed means reading a better translation of the Holy Bible. The NIV is for those who have not reached this summit of knowledge. We know this because the faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary use the NIV in many of their published works.
If you want to reach the fullness of the faith you must loose anything published by Zondervan. Ask yourself this question, given the choice between the two, which translation would John Piper read, the NIV or the ESV? See, that was simple.
If you haven't already visited the reformed (puritan) board, go over there and tell them you like the NIV. The reformed over there will give you a reality check right quick.
And thats the way I see it.
Tom
The above sound like they came right from the mouth of Leland Ryken.
If a translation tries to do an isolated word-for-word approach it would end up looing rather strange.
A sense-for-sense or phrase-for-phrase approach has a good legacy in Bible translation.
Your meaning of "from the horse's mouth" and mine are two different things. Why would you consider the website for the ESV translation as being a direct source for the NIV translation methodology?
If you would consult the Preface of the NIV you will find no mention of dynamic equivalency. The TEV,NCV and other translations are in that category.
Within the excellent book :The Challenge Of Bible Translation is a good chapter by Dick France. It's called :The Bible In English:A Review.
"Thus, the relatively conservative New International Version, regarded by some as veering toward literalism..." (P.192).
In the very fine book So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht they have a nine page review of the NIV. Not once is dynamic equivalence even mentioned. They,do of course speak of it in their chapter on the TEV.
Interpreting The New Testament Text edited by Darrell L.Bock and Buist M.Fanning. Chapter three is :"Grammatical Analysis" by J.William Johnston. The author says :"In comparison with the formal-equivalent variety (e.g.,NASB,NIV),translations that tend toward the dynamic-equivalent range (e.g., NET,NLT) will usually reflect grammatical categorizations more specifically." (p.60)
Philip Comfort in his Essential Guide To Bible Versions says : The translators of the New International Version sought to make a version that was midway between a literal rendering (such as the NASb) and a free,modern speech edition (such as TEV). (p.189).
He goes on to say that the NIV "struck a happy medium between the stiff and literal versions and the modern,idiomatic versions." (p.191)
"Thus, the relatively conservative New International Version, regarded by some as veering toward literalism..." (P.192).
In the very fine book So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht they have a nine page review of the NIV. Not once is dynamic equivalence even mentioned. They,do of course speak of it in their chapter on the TEV.
Interpreting The New Testament Text edited by Darrell L.Bock and Buist M.Fanning. Chapter three is :"Grammatical Analysis" by J.William Johnston. The author says :"In comparison with the formal-equivalent variety (e.g.,NASB,NIV),translations that tend toward the dynamic-equivalent range (e.g., NET,NLT) will usually reflect grammatical categorizations more specifically." (p.60)
Philip Comfort in his Essential Guide To Bible Versions says : The translators of the New International Version sought to make a version that was midway between a literal rendering (such as the NASb) and a free,modern speech edition (such as TEV). (p.189).
He goes on to say that the NIV "struck a happy medium between the stiff and literal versions and the modern,idiomatic versions." (p.191)
Well said. You see it quite clearly. (But we can't mention other websites as such.)
The horse's mouth is the ESV translators/website explaining their position (can't get more "primary source" than that) and showing the relationship with other translations and why the ESV differs from them.
If someone wants to know why the ESV is different than other English translations, I direct them immediately to the "horse's mouth" and let them read.
In addition to the PRIMARY site
http://www.esv.org/about/other.translations
Here are other unrelated sites, all of which agree that (whether you want to admit it or not) the NIV is basically "dynamic" not "formal".
http://christianunityblog.net/2010/02/13/dynamic-equivalence-and-the-niv-other-issues/
http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp (even catholics recognize this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate (and the never-wrong wikipedia site says it, too)
And hundreds more. I have seriously NEVER heard anyone argue that the NIV is "formal" equivalence in all the years of debate/discussion. Why you hold this intrigues me.
Hmm,can't get more primary source than that?! The horse's mouth regarding the way the NIV was translated would not be the ESV website!
And now ladies and gentlemen, for your questions concerning the NLT's method of translation --may I direct you to the HCSB's website.
Perhaps you are confusing body parts :smilewinkgrin:. The NIV translation team is not the source you would care to refer folks to?
I do not hold to that Dr.Bob. Why you make this claim is puzzling. I have repeatedly said that the NIV is a mediating translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would hate to think that a translation is conservative or liberal but that it is translated correctly. I find a lot of conservatism and liberalism to be bolstered by ignorance in that they only teach what they have already heard and have not studied their Bible well enough to know what scripture really teaches. The ignorant would not know that because they are a part of that problem.
Some guy's opinion.
Well, did you know that this guy lumps the RSV,NRSV, and yes, the NASBU along with the NIV into the realm of dynamic-equivalency?!
Perhaps you didn't look at his info very much.
This RC guy puts the Moffat,Philips and Knox versions into the dynamic category! So I'm supposed to trust him when it comes time for him to wax eloquently on the demerits of the NIV?
Well, this one doesn't help your cause either Dr.Bob. He says the NIV strikes a balance between dynamic and formal.
So much for all the useful info found on those sites which support your view.
I think I've posted before that I've heard two NIV translators use DE to describe the NIV. I guess that's "horse's mouth" source, but they were two of many. Then again, as I've posited before, this idea of pinning categories to translations is fluid to an extent, or at least nebulous.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
For a real treat, read the ESV Endorsements listing.... esv.org/about/endorsements
A real stand out is this one:
“We are building all our future ministry around the ESV…. The ESV satisfies the preaching, memorizing, studying, and reading needs of our church, from children to adults.”
John Piper
And there you have it, a perfect Bible Translation cradle to grave, casual reading to intense graduate study. The ESV, all the Bible you will ever need. Could call it your "forever" Bible.
One question, how did any of those who paint such a glowing picture of the ESV ever survive before Crossways had this vision to publish a new modern translation using the USB 4 and N/A 27? This is revolutionary, isn't it?
A real stand out is this one:
“We are building all our future ministry around the ESV…. The ESV satisfies the preaching, memorizing, studying, and reading needs of our church, from children to adults.”
John Piper
And there you have it, a perfect Bible Translation cradle to grave, casual reading to intense graduate study. The ESV, all the Bible you will ever need. Could call it your "forever" Bible.
One question, how did any of those who paint such a glowing picture of the ESV ever survive before Crossways had this vision to publish a new modern translation using the USB 4 and N/A 27? This is revolutionary, isn't it?
To be fair, even the most FE translations employ DE to some extent as it is impossible to be truly FE going from greek to english.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I can't find a dictionary where perfect and satisfactory are synonymous. Am I missing something?
Also related that both words are "English". That's about all, but when you are erecting a straw-man, you simply lie. Or deceive. Or are dishonest. Or double-faced. Trying to think of a eupemism here.
Sure wish my kindergarten teacher thought those were the same.
E = Excellent or perfect
V = Very Good or near to perfect
G = Good
S = Satisfactory or "passing" enough to get me into first grace
N = Needs improvement
If I was truly humble (never accused of that) I would scan my card from 1952 and you would see a number of "S". Far cry from Perfect
"It [the NIV] is still somewhat under the influence of the word-for-word approach. This middle ground position is one of its strengths. Its accuracy is guaranteed by close attention to the words and grammar of the original,and its readibility is guaranteed by its freedom to employ current English equivalent idiom."
The above is from: Part One: Bible Translation:Why,What, And How? by Donald W. Burdick.
____________________________________________________________
"As for the NIV, its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a minimum of literalism,paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence. In other words,The NIV stands on middle ground -- by no means the easiest position to occupy. It may fairly be said that the translators were convinced that, through long patience in seeking the right words, it is possible to attain a high degree of faithfulness in putting into clear and idiomatic English what the Hebrew and Greek texts say. Whatever literary distinction the NIV has is the result of the persistence with which this course was pursued." (p.13)
The Story Of The New International Version by Kenneth L.Barker.
The above is from: Part One: Bible Translation:Why,What, And How? by Donald W. Burdick.
____________________________________________________________
"As for the NIV, its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a minimum of literalism,paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence. In other words,The NIV stands on middle ground -- by no means the easiest position to occupy. It may fairly be said that the translators were convinced that, through long patience in seeking the right words, it is possible to attain a high degree of faithfulness in putting into clear and idiomatic English what the Hebrew and Greek texts say. Whatever literary distinction the NIV has is the result of the persistence with which this course was pursued." (p.13)
The Story Of The New International Version by Kenneth L.Barker.
That's a bit harsh.
Satisfies = full contentment. The ESV meets to the full all things necessary to fulfill the requirements of John Piper and his congregation. All desires and expectations are completely realized in this Bible version.
What is first grace? I have heard of grace upon grace.
- Status