ESV or NIV11

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TCGreek, Jan 28, 2012.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    It all depends.

    While the ESV is considered "essentially literal" and the NIV a mediating, there are actually places where the NIV11 is more "literal" than the ESV. See Gal 1:15.

    On matters of translation, it really depends on a person's level of understanding in these matters. For example, if you're in a particular camp, you'll find the NIV appealing to you more. There tends to be some kind of "pressure."

    That being said, let's avoid confusing more formal and literal with accuracy. They are not one and the same. formal/literal does not equal accuracy.

    For example, while the NASB is more formal than the NIV, the NASB is not necessary more accurate than the NIV by virtue of being more formal.
     
  2. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make a good arguement for have several English translations open when we are in deep study!
     
  3. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I went to a Bible college from a different denomination than my background. I am a SBC pastor and I attended Nazarene Bible College. They routinely quoted the NIV. In fact, I served as a Senior Adult Ministries Pastor at a Nazarene church in the past and the senior pastor their always quoted the NIV.

    In a few of our discussions their was a deep divide in our understanding of an issue. They would quote NIV, and I would quote NASB. In an effort to understand why we were so divided I started comparing some verses and found that their corrupt theology was based on the NIV as it translated some key verses differently than the others. I found this by comparing NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV, and YLT to the NIV. Sometimes I even added in the NRSV.

    It's been a few years but if I remember right the main argument was on sin, which explains why they have off ideas in other parts of their theology as well.

    I do believe it is helpful to have many translations handy, but compare them carefully and use them wisely. Just because one "explains it so much better" does not mean it is correct. There's usually a reason one translation is an odd ball.

    Besides all that, I have issues with the attempt to make the Bible gender neutral. As the folks behind the NIV want to do. Which is another area I disagreed with a couple of my instructors about. They had no problem making God an "It" instead of "He" and cared little about how this would impact key doctrines. They also did not care for the genders of the people, so its easy to justify women pastors, homosexuality, and the like. Anything to be "loving" and inclusive...and relevant.

    I do still have my NIV Archeological Study Bible, but only for comparison and object lessons. It ranks down there with "the message", as far as I am concerned.
     
  4. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    My friend,

    Most if not all who frequent this forum know what apparently you have never heard and that is the Nazarene Church is Wesley/Arminian in theology and was ordaining women many years before anyone ever read the NIV translation of the Bible. To blame the NIV for SBC/Nazarene differences is really, you know, I guess, um, silly.
     
  5. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV should not be blamed for that preacher's questionable conclusions. For example, we have Mark Dever (SBC) and DA Carson, both Baptists, and who faithfully preach from the NIV.

    It's a matter of interpretation, applying faithfully that grammatico-historal approach and so on.
     
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    And using the original text as well.
     
  7. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    LOL I am well aware of the Nazarene's being Welseyan/Arminian.

    I am sorry if you misunderstood me. The people leading their churches and teaching in the college I attended used the NIV. They quoted the verses that supported their theology and polity. Their stance was not supported by more reliable translations. I do not blame the translation. I agree that is silly. I blame the people who is it and refuse to see the danger of using an unreliable translation.
     
  8. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, spot on.
     
  9. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well then. Funny, I've been using the NIV since 1980 and do not agree with ordaining women. I've also attended a Bible College that also used the NIV and likewise didn't allow women in the pulpit. Dumb luck I guess!
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    If a church wants to change over from the KJV or NKJV the ESV makes sense. But since the 84 NIV will not be published any longer going for the ESV just does not make any sense. It would be taking several steps backward.

    For normal English the NIV,HCSB or even the NLTse would be perfectly reasonable. I wish the NET Bible was sold in Christian bookstores.

    As Thomas P.Nass has said regarding the ESV:"Simply put,it is a doctrinally acceptable,somewhat unidiomatic and inconsistent evangelical revision of the RSV. Nothing more and nothing less. It is a translation that promises more than it actually produces."
     
  11. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    would say that the NASb would be more "accurate' to trying to give to us what the original text actually said, but that there would be passages where those such as Niv/HCSB allows us to better understand 'what was meant!"

    as I do favor the NASb as regards to use witht he greek text, but do also use both Niv/HCSB to read what they say in some of the 'tougher' NASB renderings!
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That's the crux of the matter. What the text says is not necessarily the same thing as what it means. A good version goes with the philosophy of translating what the original means.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    From How To Read The Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D.Fee and Douglas Stuart. "If the best translational theory is functional equivalence,a translation that adheres to formal equivalence is often helpful as a second source;it can give you some confidence as to what the Hebrew or Greek actually actually looked like." (p.42)
     
  14. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    very good book, was required reading in college, in regards to learning just "how to read the Bible!"

    just curious, why do you think that so many evangelicals still hold, as I do, the nasb as high regard for use of study?
     
  15. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, as far as formal structure of the text, the NASB will be considered more "accurate."

    But translating the text is a whole number issue, though there might be some overlapping.

    Consider this: our use of prepositions to capture the Greek genitives hardly does justice to the range of Greek genitives.

    A cursory look at Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics bears this out.
     
  16. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, that illustrates for us just WHY at times simple impossible to do a strictly literally wooden translated off Greek texts into English, as 'some things" very hard to qualify and be unto English for full understanding!

    I see that formal equivalance "word for word" preferred to more dynamic way to translate, but NOT saying that its always produces the mbest rendering into English as regarding being able to really understand what God meant!
     
  17. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    It really boils down to which philosophy of approach to translation dominates the project.
     
  18. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    and we do agree that wether ones goes formal as in NASB, or more midiate as in Niv/HCsb, still get a good accurate translation either way!
     

Share This Page

Loading...