Some Places Where NIV Is More Literal...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    than the ESV and NASBU,according to the footnotes of the latter.

    Gen.16:6
    Lit: your maid is in your hand
    NIV : your slave is in your hands
    ESV :your servant is in your power (NASBU sim.)

    Job 17:13
    Lit. I spread out my bed
    NIV : I spread out my bed
    ESV : I make my bed (NASBU same)

    Ps 9:4
    Lit. my right and my cause
    NIV : my right and my cause
    ESV : my just cause (NASBU same)

    Ps. 44:14
    lit. shaking of the head
    NIV : shake their heads
    ESV : laughingstock (NASBU same)

    Ps. 69:14
    Lit. those who hate me
    NIV : those who hate me
    ESV : my enemies
    NASBU : my foes

    Pro 14:7
    Lit. lips of knowledge
    NIV : knowledge on their lips
    ESV : words of knowledge (NASBU same)


    Pro. 24:32
    Lit. I set my heart
    NIV : I applied my heart
    ESV : I considered (NASBU sim.)

    Song 3:6
    Lit. Who is this?
    NIV : Who is this?
    ESV : What is that? (NASBU same)

    Is 32:6
    Lit. to make empty the hungry soul
    NIV : the hungry he leaves empty
    ESV : to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied (NASBU sim.,though less wordy)

    Lam 2:3
    lit. every horn in Israel
    NIV : every horn in Israel
    ESV : all the might of Israel (NASBU sim.)

    2 Cor 11:29
    Lit. and I do not burn?
    NIV : and do I not inwardly burn?
    ESV : and I am not indignant?
    NASBU : without my intense concern?

    Col 2:16
    Lit. judge you
    NIV : judge you
    ESV : pass judgement on you
    NASBU : act as your judge

    Phil 1:14
    Lit. my bonds
    NIV : my chains
    ESV : my imprisonment (NASBU same)
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    A Couple More Places Where The NIV Is More Literal

    Ex. 6:8
    Lit. I lifted my hand
    NIV : I swore with uplifted hand
    ESV : I swore (NASBU the same)

    1 Tim. 5:21
    Lit. without partiality
    NIV : without partiality
    ESV : without prejudging
    NASBU : doing nothing in a spirit of partiality
     
  3. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,369
    Likes Received:
    105
    NIV haters often completely ignore these kinds of posts and I see that they all did in this case. Thanks for pointing this out.

     
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Rippon has made some errors here. I'm not going to bother with the OT quotes here, though no doubt he has errors there too. I'll just point out his mistakes in the NT.
    The word burn (purow)
    is an idiom. The NIV has translated this literally, but that doesn't mean it is more literal in its method. In fact, the argument can be made that the NIV in rendering "burn" is making an interpretation, since the English idiom "burn" mean strictly to be angry, but the Greek idiom can mean "grieving" or "sympathizing." (See the BAGD lexicon.) There are four literal ways to translate an idiom, and all three of these translations are using a literal method here. For more information about this point, see my essay on translating idioms at: http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.jp/search/label/Bible translation
    The original is the verb krinw, and both the ESV and NASBU use a verb to translate. I'm sure the translators of both would take the position that they were being literal. In BAGD, the definition "pass judgment" is in definitions 2 and 6a. "Act as judge" is one of the definitions Louw-Nida gives. So all three translations are literal.
    The Greek word here is desmoV, with a definition in Friberg as "literally bond, fetter." However, it also has "by metonymy imprisonment, prison (PH 1.7)." So this too is a literal translation in all three versions.

    If in every case the lexicons have the meaning, then I suggest that none of these can be anything other than literal renderings, even if they differ with each other.
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Here again all translations have literal renderings. The Greek phrase is: mhden poiwn kata prosklisin. Rippon is showing only part of the phrase in the NIV and ESV, then the whole phrase in the NASBU. I'm not sure why he does that.

    An interlinear would have: nothing...doing...according to...partiality. All three of these translations are thus literal in my opinion, though the NASBU rendering might be argued.

    My question, though, is even if all of the examples given so far were places where the NIV was more literal, what does that prove? I'm not sure what Rippon's point is here. This is only a tiny fraction of the whole Bible. To prove anything either way a much more detailed study must be done.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks JOJ. Lets consider Job 17:13, where the NIV has the literal spread out my bed, whereas the NASB has make my bed. Perhaps the NIV is a tad more literal, but to spread out a bed seems to refer to making a bed, as opposed to littering a vast area with various parts of a bed.

    Now lets look at Job 41:30 where the NIV renders the same word, as leaving a trail. The NASB has spread. Lets look at the same word again, this time at Song of Solomon 2:5. The NIV has refresh, as does the NASB, but the actual meaning is support.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    1 Tim 5:21
    Lit. without partiality
    NIV : without partiality
    ESV : without prejudging
    NASBU : doing nothing in a spirit of partiality

    You were not sure why I quoted the whole phrase in the NASBU. Well if I had just quoted "in a spirit of partiality" that would have been unfair! :) I had to get the negative sense in there like the other renderings.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    "Places where the NIV is more literal." I was not maintaining that the NIV was in general more literal than the NASBU,merely that there are places where it is more literal than the NASBU and the ESV for that matter.
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Okay, got it.
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    That makes sense.
     
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Lets look at a couple of these:

    Gen.16:6
    Lit: your maid is in your hand
    NIV : your slave is in your hands
    ESV :your servant is in your power (NASBU sim.)


    In Genesis 16:6 the NIV is no more literal than the NASB. The NASB has your maid is in your power with power footnoted as literally hand. OTOH, the NIV does not have maid, strike one, and has hands rather than hand, strike two. And neither slave nor servant, depending on the NIV version is footnoted as literally maid.

    Job 17:13
    Lit. I spread out my bed
    NIV : I spread out my bed
    ESV : I make my bed (NASBU same)


    Again this verse in the NIV is less literal than the NASB. The NIV has "if the only home I hope for is the grave, whereas the NASB has if I look for Sheol as my home.

    Bottom line where the NASB footnoted they had gone away from the literal, this specific word or phrase was then compared the the NIV and where the NIV happened to use the literal, these were posted. The whole verse was not compared. Thus this is an absurd effort to show the NIV is sometimes more literal, when if you compare using the whole verse, the NASB is more literal even in the examples given. Basically the NASB provides the literal either in the text or in the footnote, whereas the NIV does not footnote its deviations from the literal. LOL
     
    #11 Van, Jun 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2013
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Despite all your words,the NIV is more literal than the NASBU and ESV in that snip."Hands" is more literal than the word "power."

    Again,the phrase I addressed is what I brought out:The NIV is more literal than the other two versions. I was not speaking of the entire verse;just therelevant phrase I had quoted.
     
  13. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Give me a break, the NASB footnote is more literal for the snippet. Your effort is without merit. Neither the ESV nor NIV should be considered literal. You NIV snippet has slave/servant rather than maid. Hands rather than hand. No one would think the NIV snippet is more literal than the NASB snippet including the footnote.

    Next a case can be made that make a bed is a literal translation, plus the spread out is footnoted. To claim footnoting the literal means the translation is not as literal as a translation that does not indicate a less than literal translation is a joke.

    The NASB is always much more literal than either the ESV or NIV period. Just read the NASB, and exclude the words inserted in italics and change the footnoted word or phrase to the literal given in the footnote. This is not rocket science.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,097
    Likes Received:
    49
    the nasb more literal then either Niv/esv!
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    You are wrong. I always read the footnotes in various versions. When a more literal reading is footnoted it certainly means that the rendering in the text is less than literal. Not always a bad thing.

    You have to be more careful when you use absolutes here. Not "always" but normally the NASBU is more literal than the ESV. And less frequently the NIV is more literal than the NASBU.
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Complete fiction, both the ESV and NIV are liberal translations. In the very examples you chose, the NASB95 was more literal. You have provided zero, zip, nada examples where either the ESV or NIV is more literal that the NASB95 including footnotes.

    OTOH, pick any passage in the entire Bible, comprised of a complete sentence, and the NASB will be as literal, footnotes included, and italic words omitted, as either the NIV or ESV. Mostly Calvinists push the NIV and ESV because of the liberal translations.
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Van you are living in a bizre world.So your simple categories are lieral and liberal? How quaint.

    Chuckle,chuckle.
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    More deflection, shuck and jive and evasion. The assertion that the NIV or ESV is more literal than the NASB95 (including footnotes and excluding italicized words) is bizarre. The effort to take an effort to provide the literal translation and the meaning using footnotes, and claim that means the NASB is not literal because of the footnote is really bizarre. In my class, such an effort would get an "F."
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,097
    Likes Received:
    49
    Would sya the Niv would be same "literalness" as the HCSB, while Esv would be between those 2 and the nasb!

    And would say reformed favor esv, while baptist calvinists still like the nasb!
     
    #19 Yeshua1, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2013
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    I have given examples in the past where the ESV and NIV are more literal than the NASBU. I have also maintained that the NASBU is normally more literal than both the NIV and ESV. What's hard to understand about that?

    Calling the ESV and NIV liberal translations is something that you have not proven;only asserted. But of course you asserrt all sorts of trashy things against Calvinism too;this is just a different forum for you to "distribute" your errant teachings.
     

Share This Page

Loading...