The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I really appreciate Robert Slowley's painstaking and comprehensive work in listing all the verses in the canon and showing the differences (if any) with the 1984 NIV,TNIV and the 2011 NIV.

    I went through 13 books in the New Testament and just pulled out *some* select snippets comparing the older TNIV with the latest new NIV. I didn't itemize every verse -- just a number from 13 NT books so far.

    When I started the process I didn't intend to put the ESV in the mix. But then decided it would be interesting.

    Later I might get specific with a listing of the snips. But presently I'd like to simply catalog my findings so far.

    Remember, the select snips are culled from 13 NT books.This simple survey involves segments of only 92 verses.

    E = ESV
    T = TNIV
    N =2011 NIV

    I found that the TNIV snips (not entire verses -- just the isolated important parts)were identical with the ESV wording on 18 occasions.In 5 more cases the wording was almost the same.

    The 2011 NIV wording was identical with the ESV 14 times. In 13 additional places the wording was almost like the ESV.

    So there is nothing definitive so far with my limited sampling. There are still 42 other cases where the wording of both the TNIV and 2011 NIV do not bare a resemblance with the ESV.

    Perhaps I'll pick up a trend if I choose to go through the remaining 14 books of the NT canon in my limited manner.

    In Summary:

    E= T 18 times

    E approximates T 5 times

    _______________________________________________

    E = N 14 times

    E approximates N 13 times

    _______________________________________________

    In the rest of the 42 verses there was no similarity to the ESV from either the TNIV or 2011 NIV.
     
  2. BobinKy

    BobinKy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice summary.

    When you post your complete findings, I hope you include the NIV 1984.

    ...Bob
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Now I've gone through another book in the New Testament which brings the number of verses I've looked at to 112.

    E = T 25 times
    E approximates T 8 times
    _____________________________________

    E = N 15 times
    E approximates N 13 times

    _____________________________________

    In the remaining 51 verses there is no similarity to the ESV from either the TNIV or 2011 NIV.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I will list some snippets which demonstrate that the 2011 NIV uses better English than the TNV. The TNIV did have some instances of out-dated and cumbersome English. Back in 2007 I had sent in several hundred suggestions for improvement in the New Testament TNIV.

    The following examples will show that the 2011 uses standard,contemporary English in contrast to the TNIV.

    From the book of Mark :

    9:48
    T : their worm does not die [same as ESV]
    N : the worms that eat them do not die

    14:19
    T : surely not I?
    N : Surely you don't mean me?

    14:37
    T : Could you not [same as ESV]
    N : Couldn't you

    From the book of Luke :

    1:16
    T : Many of the people of Israel will he bring back
    N : He will bring back many of the people of Israel

    1:38
    T : May it be to me according to your word. [Almost the same as ESV]
    N : May your word to me be fulfilled.

    8:6
    T : Some fell on rock
    N : some fell on rocky ground

    10:30
    T : he fell into the hands of robbers
    N : he was attacked by robbers

    21:12
    T : They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons
    N : They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison

    22:18
    T : of the fruit of the vine
    N : from the fruit of the vine

    23:18
    T : With one voice they cried out
    N : But the whole crowd shouted

    24:24
    T : but him they did not see
    N : but they did not see Jesus

    From the book of Acts :

    11:22
    T : News of this reached the ears of the church [ESV almost the same]
    N : News of this reached the church

    17:4
    T : and not a few [ESV is the same]
    N : and quite a few

    19:24
    T : no little business [ESV is the same]
    N : a lot of business

    27:23
    T : an angel of the God whose I am
    N : an angel of the God to whom I belong [Same as ESV]

    From the book of Romans :

    2:15
    T : their thoughts now accusing,now even defending them
    N : their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them
    [The TNIV rendering is awkward with "now' being repeated.]

    3:8
    T : as we are slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say
    N : as some slanderously claim that we say
    [I don't know how the TNIV rendering here made it into that NIV up-date]

    7:24
    T : from this body of death [Same as ESV]
    N : from this body that is subject to death

    11:12
    T : will their fullness bring
    N : will their full inclusion bring

    11:13
    T : I make much of my ministry
    N : I take pride in my ministry
    [The 2011 rendering is a big improvement.]

    15:28
    T : received this fruit
    N : received this contribution

    From the book of 1 Corinthians :

    9:7
    T : eat of its grapes ... drink of the milk
    N : eat its grapes ... drink the milk

    11:28
    T : drink of the cup [Same as ESV]
    N : drink from the cup

    16:16
    T : submit to such as these [Same as ESV]
    N : submit to such people
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    People would be surprised (well, not many...most already know this) that the ESV and NIV (thus TNIV) were identical in places. As is the NASB with the ESV.

    There's another good thread on here about comparing the TNIV with NIV. Check it out. I'd love to spend more time doing comparison (I did a few early on) but this is a busy time for me. I'm eager to get a print copy of the new NIV.
     
  6. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I am also looking forward to getting one. :)
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    These two just popped out at me. There are not any Greek words to support "that eat them" in Mark 9:48; nor is there a Greek word to correspond to "ground" in the Luke referrence. Do we KNOW that the worms are there to eat them? Could there be a theological reason that the seed falls on "rock" rather than stony soil? Is that really acceptable 'translation'? If I want commentary I can buy it elsewhere. Shouldn't a translation translate with as little embellishment as possible? The new NIV seems very 'interpretive'.
     
    #7 franklinmonroe, Nov 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2010
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yes,worms eat dead bodies.

    Haven't you heard sermons about the Parable of the Soils? The earth that some seeds fell on was rocky soil or ground. There was just a thin layer of earth on top of rock below.

    That's what worms do Franklin.

    I doubt it.

    Maybe you don't accept it -- but I doubt that it is as objectionable as you are making it to be.

    That's not acceptable.

    Their are various kinds of translations as you well know. The 2011 NIV is a bridge between the more functionally equivalent and the more form-driven ones.I wouldn't call these two snips embellishments but clarifications. The KJV,NASB,ESV and other versions have done the same at times.
     
  9. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0

    Very well put. IMHO, a translation should be just that, not an interpretation.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    All Bible translations involve interpretation. You're only fooling yourself to think otherwise.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Your take on what you consider a "commentary" on the verse in Luke is all the more mysterious because in a parallel in Mark 4 that is a fuller treatment -- it describes the seed sown on rocky ground.Some translations have stony ground,rocky places. I consulted a wide variety of translations Darby,KJV,Wycliffe,NASB,ISV,Weymouth and HCSB just to name a few.
    There is no mistranslation or theological aberration going on. Methinks you are too quick on your trigger there Franklin. But then,perhaps that's my intrepretation. ;)
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Let me say right off that I really don't intend to dwell on this topic; however, the discussions are little sparse at present on the BB.

    No, "my take" is not made "mysterious" by the existence of parallel passages. Parallel passages should have no bearing on the translation in another book. The Greek word in Mark (& Matthew) is a altogether a different word; the versions have correctly rendered that word as "rocky places" in those books.

    On the other hand, the KJV/NKJV/ASV/RSV/ESV have "rock" in Luke. Young and Darby have "rock". The older NIV has "rock". These versions only have "rock" because that is all there is in Greek. Luke says what he says. Why can't he speak with his own voice? (guided by the Holy Spirit, of course) Should we impose upon his account even more details from the others? By this reasoning then we ought bring to the attention of the reader of Luke the fact that this parable was delivered by Jesus "by the sea" (according both Matthew & Mark). God forbid! That would be the homogenization of Scripture.

    Surely you agree that every unique detail from each Gospel should NOT be inserted into all the others. But this is what the new NIV has done. Yes, it is a small infraction. But if it begins with just a little, or only occassionally, where will it stop? And, it seems that God wanted us to have different words for these accounts from which we can often learn much.

    Similarly, the TR is rightly criticized for inserting text from latter chapters of Acts forward into a parallel account without actual Greek manuscript support in those places.
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Nov 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2010
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    All translations involve interpretation to a degree. However, more literal ones will do so less than those that are more dynamic in nature. So everyone's right to an extent. 1 Tim 3:11's gunaikas is a good example. The old NIV (and KJV, NKJV, ESV, NET, and old HCSB - not sure about the revised one) all translate the word as "wives" or "their wives." While one can make an argument for translation as the root can mean either, the addition of "their" is clearly an interpretative rendering. The new NIV (and NASB, NRSV, et.al.) renders it simply as "Women," leaving the reader to determine whether the women are the wives of deacons, deacons, or another class of women servants.

    You can be overly literal. You can also over-interpret. Context is everything.

    There...I think I ticked off everyone :)
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    From Luke 8:6

    NASBU : rocky soil
    GW : rocky soil
    ISV : stony ground
    MLB : bedrock
    NIrV : rocky places
    NAB : rocky ground

    No theological aberration is going on. These are acceptable translations -- not commentary on the text. Franklin -- you are too quick on your trigger to label legit translations as less than desirable.
     
  15. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good stuff!
     
  16. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,163
    Likes Received:
    368
    Wouldn't the question be "what does the word say" rather than "how do other versions interpret the word"?
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    From Luke 8:6

    Wyclif : a stoon
    Tyndale : on ston
    Coverdale : on stone
    Matthew's : the stone
    Great : on stone
    Bishops' : on stones
    Geneva : the stones
    Rotherham : the rock
    Weymouth : the rock
    Goodspeed : the rock
    AMP : the rock
    HCSB : the rock
    NCV : on rock
    New Jerusalem : on rock
    TNIV : on rock
    Message : the gravel

    I could go on (and on)
     
    #17 franklinmonroe, Nov 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2010
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not very convincing. As we both know, the ISV follows the GW so closely they virtually speak with one voice )neither is very high on my list of the best translations).

    Sorry, but the MLB's "bedrock" is essentially a synonym for 'rock'! Even the NIrV's "rocky places" is marginally acceptable (since it is not 'rocky ground' or soil, earth, etc.).

    So, you've added the normally reliable NASB and the NAB; and I was particularly disappointed in the NASB.
     
    #18 franklinmonroe, Nov 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2010
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    For the record, I didn't assert that there was a "theological aberration". I do think that the new NIV's rendering of "rocky ground" amounts to commentary on Luke's text. And finally, I didn't label the new NIV as "less than desirable"; I haven't labled it at all. I am only commenting on some specific renderings.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    No,your charges are baseless. Having "stony soil" is quite acceptable and there is nothing theologically wrong or questionable about the rendering. I guess you'd call the NASBU interpretive as well since it lines up with the new NIV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...