TNIV Compared With NASBU

There are places the ESV "tracks" the NASB. Places where the ESV and TNIV are equivalent. Doesn't make a good translation bad nor a poor one better. It just is what it is. Guilt or innocence by association is still fallacy.

I'm not saying that maybe some didn't throw the TNIV under the bus before they ever looked at it. No doubt a scant few did, relatively speaking.

 

I don't think comparing the TNIV to the NASB favorably gives more creedance to the TNIV any more than I think finding comparisons between the TNIV and a horrible translation would make the TNIV faulty. The standard is the original mss, not another translation. That said, I see what you're trying to do.

I reject this. I don't know that many who rejected the TNIV because Dr. Grudem said so. As I have repeatedly maintained, those I know in the scholarly world and in the pastoral community had other issues with the TNIV. Again, I know you don't believe this and you tend to intimate that somehow Colorado Springs is the evangelical vatican. :smilewinkgrin: I just happen to disagree.

Relatively speaking, those who threw the TNIV in the trash out of prejudice are a scant minority, and some friends of mine who are ardent TNIV supporters are in complete agreement with me.

 

I think it doesn't do harm to the TNIV case, but it's no silver bullet either, just the same as you couldn't bury the TNIV if it read similarly to the KJV, the NWT, etc. It's a two-edged sword...literally

I get around quite a bit, thank you. It would probably surprise you if I started name dropping. Some very prominent names on the TNIV side are very good friends. Then again, it probably wouldn't, nor should it. I care not.

In ministerial circles, ETS, SBL, or EHS, I can't think of a single soul that has been swayed because Grudem has an opinion. Can you prove that Grudem's writings about the TNIV has caused a backlash against the TNIV?

Now, if you wish to state that the ESV's registry of a Reformed who's who on its translation team and advisory committee has influenced the spread of the ESV in the Reformed world, I will not quibble with that one bit. I just hate to see Piper, Grudem, et.al. get absolutely pilloried (and that's a nice term) by those on the ardent TNIV side just because of their opinions. It's theological McCarthyism, and I don't like it, no matter who the recipients or the spreaders are.

And you're basing your argument on quotes from the PuritanBoard? what next? Basing your view of all Baptists just because of some here? Come on. Too many people are stuck at their keyboard, flailing away in the blogosphere and boards, and not involved in the scholarly/pastoral community.

I keep forgetting: Reality=Rippon's opinion. I just happen to think reality could be something else. I know, I should be ashamed at my gall :laugh:

Interestingly, I heard Grudem give a strong critique of some of the translation choices of the NASB at a conference once. Of course, those who know him know he's a big fan of the RSV. That was the basis for his Systematic Theology though he included end-of-chapter/book references for NASB and the NIV.

 

I just did a search at FoF. Grudem has appeared on there twice total. While he was alone, he has debated Dr. Strauss, et.al., on the TNIV (as did Mounce, btw). ETS has had one. Others have, too. The idea that Dr. Grudem has gone around unchecked is not truthful. I don't believe he's had unfettered FoF time, either. Dobson obviously wanted one side, so he didn't have Grudem. That's his right, just like it's the right of those on the pro-TNIV side to only have their view represented. Now, if you want to argue that James Dobson is no textual scholar, feel free. I'll join you.

And yeah, I'm sure I can find lots of quotes about the TNIV by Grudem before it ever even existed :laugh:

This is entirely your opinion. To make it anything higher is fallacious.

Fallacious for two reasons. One, you poison the well of the recipient. So only naive people believe these men? Second, you cannot empirically verifiy the extent of how much effect they've had, or at least, you have failed to do so to this point.

I haven't read everything by every translator/advisor on the TNIV. I do know I've read much from TNIV advocates and had convos with them who have made decrying the ESV their life's work, and some of that has been to question theological foundations. (Most popular was it's a "baby-sprinkler's Bible." More than one told me they were going to have an ESV burning party. The recent addition of Mounce to the CBT has been attributed by them to the fact that he's bowed to the Shibboleth and is now on the Zondervan payroll. This is all ancedotal and should be seen as such, just as your ancedotal evidence should.
And again, the idea that only "lies" have been distributed about the TNIV fails to take into consideration that some may have legitimate translational issues. When you start with your conclusion in mind, everything fits that.

I just disagree with you that any negative word or criticism against the TNIV is based out of some sinister thing, and that you reject the notion that some could be evaluating based on legitimate translational issues for the good of the translation itself, if not the greater Kingdom.

That said, no one can deny that some out there have stated what you assert. Here I blame the publishers. They should've been able to refute this. They never did, nor do I think they adequately tried. You may not like to hear this, but the biggest enemy the TNIV had was its publisher.

This is faulty. I no more base what I read on PB as being normative for the Reformed community than what I watch on BET as being indicative of African Americans, or on ESPN.com as being indicative of sports fans. There is no one to one correlation.

Have you attended ETS? EHS? SBL? Have you been with faculty, professors, ministerial groups? I sat with some last week at a major seminary, one or two of whom are major TNIV proponents. Their take is not yours. Forgive me, my friend, but I just can't accept ("I've read the blogs and message boards so I'm an expert") line. This is no more true than listening to Rush Limbaugh or America Left makes one a public policy or political science expert. Is information garnered? Sure. How deep, broad, applicable, and verifiable is that information? Therein the rub lies (like my awkward ESV type wording, there?) :laugh: Seriously. Let's go back to my post in the other thread. I asked how many bb members who were going to be at ETS and/or SBL would take up Moo on his invite, or who also got the letter. No responses. So therefore, no Baptist is a member of ETS/SBL, right? Using your logic, that's right. However, in reality this is not the case.

Have you heard them? How do you know?

Whew. Thanks :thumbsup:

 

I see that Rippon is trying to do with a comparison to the NASB, which is favored by Greek students and is very conservative.

When I sit down to do some Greek studies, I have an NASB on the desk along side. So I see what your doing. People are not seeing the bulk of the translation quality because of translation choices in certain areas though. Mainly the gender neutral renderings. Which by what I have read is why Zondervan is scraping it.

If Zondervan can keep the literalness of the TNIV with the readability and smoothness of the NIV in the next edition, they will have a winner on their hands.

 

I know. The TNIV is perfect :smilewinkgrin:

I think they could use some improvement, esp the HCSB.

If you're arguing that the TNIV is something other than a non-formal or EL,W/W translation, then you're even disagreeing with the TNIV translators. http://www.biblica.com/bibles/tniv/balanced.php As has been well established, it's hard to put translations into hard and fast categories. The NLT is quite literal in places. The KJV and NASB are quite DE in spots. That still does not mitigate against the overarching translation philosophy.

I don't doubt that there's ignorance about the TNIV, nor do I deny that some would have presuppositions that no amount of facts will sway. I just maintain that it's fallacy to assume all opposition consists of such. And I still maintain that the best way to prove the worth of the TNIV is to compare to the mss, not necessarily another translation, as interesting as those comparisons are (and perhaps useful on some base level).

I could not agree more.

We've been round this many times. Not going backwards.

Rippon remains on message! :tongue3: The publisher could've responded better if they wanted to. They rolled over, raised the white flag, and cowered in the fetal position. Just my opinion - and shared by many on the pro TNIV side.

I'd recommend listening a little more broadly. Getting one-sided opinions is never a good thing. Breadth of exposure only strengthens people's views and ability to have them.

The former is true, but you have intimated the latter in my assessment.

Well, to ask about it's tameness or rigidity is asking the wrong question. I think it goes to the broader point: there are other translations that have been critiqued, perhaps for the same reasons the TNIV has been. Problem is, the TNIV has gotten ALL the publicity on ALL sides. An undue amount of attention has been paid on both sides without the resulting constructive work could've happened. At a Q&A early on in this matter, a staunch critic of the TNIV said that the goal was not the destruction of the TNIV, but rather that light be shone and heat be dissipated. Regrettably, his wish did not come true, and its not just the sole fault of any one person or group that this is so. The one thing I hoped would come out of all this is that we'd have a greater respect for translation process and textual criticism. I don't know if that goal is being achieved on any side. The internet is filled with "nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff. While this is minority and does not reflect the scholarly community, it's still sad.

Thanks :thumbs:

 

You think so?

 

You could likely find correlation between any translation and a good one or horrible one in spots. That's my thesis, to which you seem to disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think he misspoke as well. No question the NIV/TNIV paraphrases. But to call one or the other or both a paraphrase is not accurate.

Sigh. Again, not going backwards here.

Interesting you can say this without evaluating the evidence :smilewinkgrin:

I'd love to hear you further on how the NIV/TNIV can/should improve readibility.

 

I give up...I just give up. I'm getting off the merry go round. I hope we can break substantive ground elsewhere. Towards that end.....

I'd be curious to see some if you have time. I've heard few arguments relative to this for the TNIV (though I've felt there could be rome for improvement to be more accurate yet readable), so I'd love to see some of yours relative to the mss.

 

Now lets go get some ice cream at Marble Slab and whine about that blocked field goal last Saturday :laugh:

 

Be more than happy to join you. Although, not much to whine about. Now, if you want to join me in criticizing the poor clock mgmt by our coach, the stupidity that went into his not running a play for 48 seconds to set up a FG attempt that produced a miss and a block earlier......:laugh:

At any rate, I'll buy. Meet you at Turkey Creek :thumbs: