Featured If You or Your Church Switched from NIV to ESV....Why?

Is there a point somewhere in all this, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

The NIV is not a dynamic-equivalent translation. Thought-for-thought really should be called phrase for phrase or sense for sense. That's not the same thing as dynamic-equivalent.

There is no such creature as a word-for-word translation.

I'm glad you finally recognize that the ESV and NASB also do phrase-for-phrase in translating.

 

Dave Brunn, in his book One Bible,Many Versions says:

"Every version translates thought for thought rather than word for word in many contexts." (p.189)

"Every version steps away from the original form in order to be grammatically correct in English." (p.189)

In The Story of the New International Version :

"As for the NIV...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."

Rod Decker :

"I think it's fair to conclude that in terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB."

 

Decker has written a lot about the ESV NT, including a book-length critical review that I think is worth reading. And he is a decent scholar. Nevertheless, I don't think he is right in the above quote (granted that I am judging without the context). The ESV is certainly somewhere between the NIV and the NASB, but I think it is a lot closer to the NASB as far as translation philosophy.

The ESV is a great English translation. I think it is the best we have now.

It is also worth noting that we are so blessed as English speakers to be able to have such an argument. There are well over a 1000 languages with no translation at all, and several thousand that have only one translation, often that is dated or otherwise in bad need of revision.

 

Based on what criteria?

I find it dated and badly in need of revision. LOL!

Decker says that PR department of the ESV "would like you to think that the ESV is 'NASB on English steroids'!) [as] some ESVO advocates would have you believe. [But] the best parts of the ESV are those that use the most functional equivalence (and yes, there is a fair bit of functional eqivalence in ESV); the clumsiest parts are those which are most NASB-like."

 

Decker was playing it tongue-in-cheek. However some advocates of the ESV are a little overboard when talking up their fav.

 

:laugh::laugh: Like some NIV proponents, who act like any negativity about the NIV is a personal attack on their family! :laugh::laugh: Eh, rippon?


As to why churches/people are switching from the NIV to the ESV? Well, they're simply finding it a better translation.

 

I have yet to see too many that would make it a superior translation. Read through it once already and use it each Sunday. Just OK, IMO. Still like the NLT better.

 

You'd have to ask them. It's better because they apparently think so, which is why they switched. Do you think someone switches to a version because they think it's inferior? :laugh:

 

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. As am I. I think the ESV is the best available translation becuase I think it strikes the best balance between readability and accuracy. I am switching my church to it (from the NIV) for that reason, and because that is the version from which I preach. That is not to say that I think it is without its problems, and I have written the SBS/Crossway about five times with suggestions for improvements. But it is a very solid translation, in my linguistically-informed opinion.

--- Sent from my smartphone.

 

I did not try to argue about anything. I responded to posts directed at me and answered them. You will have to deal with your own errors.

 

The link I posted shows some examples.

 

I prefer more literal translation, so do have and use the esv, but also like to use 2 versions to me even more literal , the Nasb/Nkjv!

Think my pastor , who has 2 earned Phd's stated it well, in that the "problem" witht the esv is that those who prefer the Niv would see it as being about same thing, whilw those liking Nasb will fault it for not being "literal" enough!

 

Two others here have agreed with my understanding...what errors?

 

No,only lies that are directed toward the NIV and its translators.

That think it is anyway. But I have the hope that the translators will devote a whole block of time and energy to revamp the entire thing --especially in the Old Testament where they left the RSV virtually untouched. But as I have said in a thread I made a few years ago --if they are serious about making real improvement in their translation it would look a lot like the NIV --they can't have that!

 

Get specific please.

 

Think it comes downto the translators Philosophy
behind how they decide to have the version rendered from the original languages texts!

As many prefer a word for word as against a thought by thought practice

 

Since no translation is word-for-word --versions are by-and-large sense-for-sense. The so-called more literal or form-oriented ones have as their professed goal to reflect the originals in the receptor language. But there is a substantial difference between the ideal and the real as Dave Brunn has pointed out.