How did you select the Bible you use?

Wonderful post!

 

John, I direct your attention to Rippon's reply and also to Fee and Strauss How To Choose A Translation for All It's Worth?

The T/NIV is never listed as DE.

 

The following is from Philip W.Comfort Ph.D. :Essential Guide To Bible Versions (page 191).

"The success of the NIV is due,in part,to the fact that it struck a happy medium between the stiff and literal authorized versions and the modern,idiomatic versions. The NIV retained enough of the traditional language of the English Bible to make it familiar -- especially in passages that are well known to Bible readers -- while being modern enough to appeal to contemporary readers."

There was not a word in the four pages he devoted to the NIV where he so much as mentioned dynamic equivalence.By the way,he is well-regarded as a Bible translator for several versions.

 

What I asked for was a scholar who specifically says it is not DE.

I actually got into this discussion at this point because of a discussion with a Greek scholar. He believes that the other profs at his seminary (a well known one) would all agree with him that the T/NIV is an example of a DE translation. I could do a survey of the other Greek and/or Hebrew teachers I know at several other seminaries. But the truth is, I am more interested in your criteria for your judgment that the T/NIV is not. That's why I started another thread--so as not to derail this or the other current thread.

 

Frankly, I look at all modern versions as another sermon. Each one opens a new window of learning. The technicalities of how they came about don't concern me.

My KJV is my base Bible and I work from it. Correct it where it doesn't fit, use other versions to help me and leave it at that.

Moffit was written by a liberal of liberals. It remains a decent reference Bible. J.B. Phillips was also written by a liberal, but I love its use of modern English.

Let the academics argue and debate the various manuscripts, and that is also a good thing, but the bottom line to me is, What is the word saying to me, in its context and culture, and what does it mean to me here and now.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The Bible that is obeyed is more properly used than the Bible that sits on a shelf. :saint:

 

I had to have a quick gander....You may enter my study at any time of day or night and I should be quite embarassed should you not find an open Bible on my desk. Lifetime habit, I suppose.

Cheers,

Jim

 

John, I've referenced Fee and Strauss.

 

All right. Not exactly what I asked, but I'll not be picky. :smilewinkgrin:

Your original statement was that you know of no scholars who said the NIV was DE. I gave Ryken and you didn't accept him as a translation scholar, even though he was the Literary Chairman for the ESV, has done extensive research in Bible translation methodology and has a Ph. D. in English (making him a professional linguist). That's light years beyond our own Rippon who speaks with such "authority" on the BB about translation.

But hey, let's look at a couple of other genuine scholars who call the NIV a DE translation. Dr. James Price, a Hebrew scholar with a Ph. D. from Dropsy, a Hebrew University, translator on the NKJV and delineator of the optimal equivalence method calls the NIV a DE translation on p. 28 of Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation. He goes into detail about the DE method that I'll not mention here.

Wayne Grudem is widely known for criticizing the T/NIV. Just saying that name is enough to get Rippon growling. His position is that "Although the T/NIV is "not a thoroughly dynamic equivalence translation, there is so much dynamic equivalence influence in the NIV that I cannot teach theology or ethics from it either. I tried it for one semester several years ago, shortly after the NIV first came out, and I gave it up after a few weeks. Time and again I would try to use a verse to make a point and find that the specific detail I was looking for, a detail of wording that I knew was there in the original Hebrew or Greek, was missing from the verse in the NIV" (Translating Truth, p. 49). So he classifies the NIV as DE, though "not thoroughly" DE.

Brother, I like you and you're good at Greek like your screen name says, but I hope you'll at least admit that your original statement that I objected to was wrong. There are quite a few scholars who classify the T/NIV as DE. I'm sure I could find many more if I made the effort, but surely I've made my point.

 

Ryken doesn't rank.He isn't any more of an expert in Bible translation than I am.His book is full of holes.I have spoken and given many examples of this in the past.He walks hand-in-glove with Grudem.

I respect Dr.Price.But I,a mere layman,maintain he's wrong.I wonder how Dr.Black weighs in on the issue?Ask your son about that.

Complete equivalence,optimal equivalence -- so boastful.

The mere mention of his name is like waving a red flag at this bull.

Grudem has not merely criticized the TNIV -- he has been on a rip-roaring seek and destroy mission.O,by the way,he endorses the ESV.Not only that,he's on the team.In case folks lose hope about that evil, feminist-driven,PC-pleasing, liberal concoction known as the TNIV! -- the eloquent and contemporary ESV is just the ticket!

According to an internet site which has Mr.G. and Jerry Thacker as authors of Key Issues In Bible Translations -- it says :"The NIV and TNIV contains substantial elements of dynamic equivalence translation mixed with a basic commitment to esentially literal translation so they are a mixture of the two types."

You have named two.Dr.Price was one.And even Grudem,as much as he detests the TNIV, does not support your view.

I have cited on different current threads at least half a dozen experts who do not regard it as dynamic.

 

See how much grief I am spared by being my KJVonlyist sort of......:laugh:

Cheer up me lads. Spring is just about johnny and we shall enjoy the sun on a daily basis.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is a ridiculous charge. You don't know the facts. In the first place, the term "complete equivalence" was imposed on Dr. Price's work by an editor. It was not his choice. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing boastful about the term "optimal." I was raised to do my best at whatever I did--to give it my optimum, my best. That is optimal equivalence--trying to find the best equivalent within the guidelines of a set of translation principles.

Well, that was fun. Let me put away my red flag now.

 

Sigh. Here in Hokkaido we'll have snow for another month or more.

 

well, your spring is just around johnny too!

You can build snowmen and have a quiet lecture time,,,They won't sass back at you...........Now wouldn't that be a delight?

Cheers, mate, love chatting with you,

Jim

 

Hey, if I had those snowmen in the service Sunday morning could I count them? I could make them with their hands already up for the invitation! :wavey:

God bless!

 

For what it's worth John, I don't consider Leland Ryken a Biblical language scholar either. I read his book on translation theory The Word of God in English (a thinly veiled attempt to market the ESV) and know now less about the theory he tries to teach than before I started reading it (his book). I'm sure he is a great guy and a wonderful servant of the Lord but he did not win me over to his side of the argument.

On the other hand, helpful although light weight is How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Gordon Fee/ Mark L. Strauss

 

Ene, mene, mini, mo

 

I didn't say he is a Biblical language scholar, I said he is a linguist in the English language. There is a big difference. As an English language linguist he was able to help with the style of the ESV. Also, though not being a scholar in Greek or Hebrew, he is able to help translators with their English phraseology. This is a very common practice in Bible translation efforts around the world. I'm afraid those who criticize Ryken as not being knowledgeable about translation simply because he doesn't know Greek or Hebrew are ignorant of the translation process.

My co-translator in our Japanese NT effort is a linguist in Japanese and English, but not in Greek. But because he knows his own language so well he is a huge help when I'm looking for the right syntax or vocabulary in the target language. I can discuss the Greek grammar or vocabulary with him and he immediately knows what I mean because he is a linguist. He has been a tremendous help in this way. :type:

 

John, I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

My point is, Dr. L. Ryken has not convinced me that his work on the ESV and the ESV in general is something to shout about. I own 4 editions of the ESV (ESV study Bible, Reformation SB, ESV pew Bible, ESV Outreach Bible). Plus I have the previously mentioned book by Dr. Ryken. It is fair in my opinion for me to say I have given it a chance. I could go into a detailed explanation as to why I think the "essentially literal" approach isn't what it's cracked up to be or why I think the ESV isn't what the publisher claim it is.

To continue making my point, the criticism thrown at the NIV and the DE approach to translation by Dr. Ryken and those associated with the ESV is not, based on my study totally honest. I think I can still make my point while saying that the ESV is a good translation.

 

Boy did he fail miserably in that respect! The ESV shows the diligent literary merits of Ryken's liguistic abilities?! He would not get high marks from fellow professionals in his field.On the other hand,Calvin D.Linton who was a literary consultant for the NIV evidenced a better grasp of current,literary English.