Featured NIV or ESV?

So how many calvinists were involved in translating the Niv van?

 

For years on end I have been posting threads on this very subject. It still hasn't dawned on many ESV users. And it isn't a matter of "We allowed awkward constructions because they are essentially literal." ;-)

The ESV has to be completely revamped if the publishers are serious about living up to half their hype. But, as I have also said : If such an undertaking takes place the ESV will look a lot like the NIV and they can't have that!

Ryken fails as an English stylist. They need to hire people who actually use current idiomatic English --yet with dignity. But again, that would look too much like the NIV.

 

Yeah, no need to try to prove anything --just bare assertions are good enough for you.

 

Again, the ESV is understandable, but uses unnecessarily convoluted, unnatural speech. The revisers certainly did not bring archaic language up to date.

Heb. 1:3
ESV : by the word of his power
NIV : by his powerful word

Heb. 10:7
ESV : in the scroll of the book
NIV : in the scroll

Matt. 7:27
ESV : it fell, and great was the sound of it
NIV : it fell with a loud crash

Luke 22:47
ESV : there came a crowd
NIV : a crowd came up

Luke 23:47
ESV : there followed him a great multitude of the people
NIV : a large number of people followed him

Luke 24:49
ESV : I am sending the promise of my Father upon you
NIV : I am going to send you what my Father promised

1 Cor. 15:41
ESV : There is one glory of the sun
NIV : The sun has one kind of splendour

 

So how many churches have dropped the NIV2011 like a hot potato in favor of the worse ESV because of its patriarchal viewpoint. That answer would be on topic, rather than the off topic posts of the Calvinists.

 

That is the very reason the SBC created the HCSB. The flap over the use of inclusive language was raging hot and wild, they went and bought Farstad's work, tweaked it a bit and ta-da, the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

What often the "inclusive language avoiders" miss is that there is inclusive language in both the HCSB and the ESV. They think they are avoiding it by not buying an NIV. So silly. As silly as Lifeway not selling the NIV because of inclusive language usage, but still selling the NLT and NRSV which have the same amounts of inclusive language or more.

 

Thanks for your spot on post, illuminating and informative.

 

Do you meran here that we can discount the truth in the Bible that God ordianed authority as being male, as rulers over their households, and has the spiritual authority within the church?

Those two truths were what the nasb/HCSB and other MV kept!

 

One of the myths about the NIV 2011 is that it stepped back significantly from the TNIV. But in truth, the NIV2011 only stepped back and returned about 1% of the verses to the 1984 version, whereas it kept about 30% of the verse revisions found in the TNIV.

 

Like the KJVO folks, anyone who thinks the Bible should be translated accurately is disparaged as denying truth because it does not mesh with their preconceived doctrine. Is the NIV always wrong when it translates terms inclusively? Nope.

No one should fear accurate translation. Older traditional translations may have been accurate and should be retained, and not modified to satisfy liberal pressure. But if the old traditional translations were inaccurate, they should be updated.

 

So do you view the esv/Niv as good translations or not, on the whole?

 

Truth matters, not your opinion or mine. I have said the ESV, NIV and NLT are poor choices for study because they have been corrupted with Calvinist bias, and other less corrupted translations are available.

As others have pointed out, for reading I like the NIV (84) because in the majority of cases it puts forth God's message with clarity and accuracy. However, in my opinion,
sometimes it (the NIV, especially the 2011 update) corrupts the message, such as at 2 Corinthians 5:17.

And as I said, for my study I use the NASB95, filtered by removing the italicized words and inserting the Literal footnote words or phrases.

 

Lets consider Philemon 1:6:

ESV Phil. 1:6, "and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ."

NIV Phil. 1:6, "I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ."

When we in modern times speak of sharing our faith, we are referring to evangelism, of telling others of our faith in Christ, and so that is the implication of the ESV translation.

But the NIV puts it totally the other way around, our fellowship with others builds us up. The ESV, NET, and NKJV all present the text like the ESV does, i.e. the traditional translation. The NASB and HCSB present an ambiguous phrase, "fellowship of the faith" (or participation in the faith) which might indicate the idea so clearly presented by the NIV, but you have to work at it.

 

If a reference to man points to people in general, then inclusive language is warranted, but if a particular person, say a male, might be in view, i.e. the Messiah, then inclusive language pushes Christ out of the text. Lets look at Psalm 8:4:

Now the writer of Hebrews (2:6) uses this verse to point to the Messiah, but the quote at Hebrews 2:6 does not read the same:

The problem is not difficult to solve, but you must be committed to present the text over and above political correctness.

Here is a simple translation that is as inclusive as intended, yet still specific to the Messiah, "What is humankind that you are mindful of each person, a son of man that you care for that person?"