Which is best among the Niv/HCSB/ and Esv versions then?

[Yeshua1]

I like the NKJV but feel its weakness is the same as the KJV - it uses a limited (and skewed) Greek text blend compared to what is available today. The NKJV went overboard to use (as best as possible) the EXACT Greek text.

Of course, the KJVonly deny this, but that doesn't change fact. Biggest problem is the translators of the AV1611 used their own blend of Greek and that blended text was lost in a fire. So there was some "guesswork" by the NKJV translation team on what the 1600's bunch actually used.

I have 5500 texts and fragments. Contrast that to 6 that were used by Erasmus in the first Greek compilation. I feel that the Byzantine copies of copies of copies is the weakest 'family' of Greek texts today with obvious conflation of the text over the centuries.

Other than using inferior Greek base, the NKJV is excellent. I have it and my MacArthur Study Bible uses it.

(Let's keep the argument for best Greek text for another thread!!) :thumbsup:

that is why i am not interested on which textual basis was used, as a good translation came come from TR/Bzt/MT/Ct, but more important to me was the team translation philosophy!

 

[Yeshua1]

We really like the ESV. I've also looked some at the NLT but the ESV is our text here.

Some in the church think we should make one version our 'official text' for services and are leaning towards the ESV. They see that the KJV is more of a difficult read personally, so we feel that getting them to read an ESV may help them to see things more clearly. We are considering doing this. Reading the NASB and ESV has been a blessing to me and to others who were long time KJV.

We will not attack the KJV or talk of faults in the text. It isn't necessary to do so.

In my church, senior pastore teaches/preaches off mainly the Niv 2011, but also has used and also recommends the Nasb/Esv/Nlt!

And NONE cut down for using the Kjv, he just finds more can relate to MV more!

 

[preacher4truth]

In my church, senior pastore teaches/preaches off mainly the Niv 2011, but also has used and also recommends the Nasb/Esv/Nlt!

And NONE cut down for using the Kjv, he just finds more can relate to MV more!

If anyone gripes about the ESV we will invite them, honorarily, to do Scripture reading on Sunday morning. It's an ice breaker. They're usually nervous and humbled about doing it too. 1 Chronicles 1 being the text on the spot usually makes it somewhat entertaining as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

If anyone gripes about the ESV we will invite them, honorarily, to do Scripture reading on Sunday morning. It's an ice breaker. They're usually nervous and humbled about doing it too. 1 Chronicles 1 being the text on the spot usually makes it somewhat entertaining as well.

think some people areafraid that if they read a version like niv/esv/nasb, all heck would break loose, like fire from heaven!

 

[Rippon]

that is why i am not interested on which textual basis was used, as a good translation came come from TR/Bzt/MT/Ct, but more important to me was the team translation philosophy!

Sometimes the press (and Preface) of particular versions differ with respect to their actual translational method. In other words --what is said and what is really done may not be one and the same. It's better to go passage-by-passage of certain versions.

 

[Rippon]

In my church, senior pastore teaches/preaches off mainly the Niv 2011, but also has used and also recommends the Nasb/Esv/Nlt!

I am rally surprised that your senior pastor uses the 2011 NIV. You have said some rather denigrating remarks about it in multitudes of past posts. Have you told him what you think of it?

 

[Rippon]

If anyone gripes about the ESV we will invite them, honorarily, to do Scripture reading on Sunday morning. It's an ice breaker. They're usually nervous and humbled about doing it too. 1 Chronicles 1 being the text on the spot usually makes it somewhat entertaining as well.

I don't understand the point or gist of your post. You ask folks --(people that are KJV users?) to read 55 verses of geneology because you find it entertaining? Please elaborate.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't understand the point or gist of your post.

I know.

You ask folks --(people that are KJV users?) to read 55 verses of geneology because you find it entertaining? Please elaborate.

I've never done it but I've witnessed it. It was hilarious. Hey, were you that uptight incapable of humor fellow sitting next to me when it happened? Yeah, yeah, that was you. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

I've never done it but I've witnessed it. It was hilarious.

Are you the pastor of your church?

 

[preacher4truth]

Are you the pastor of your church?

Yes I am. I saw this years ago, one preacher playing a prank on another. You had to be there I guess.

 

[agedman]

One reason that I do not prefer the NIV has to do with what I consider some sloppy translation work. Especially on the work of propitiation.

Throughout the NIV, not once do they translate the Greek work properly. So the true meaning is lost, and wrong doctrinal thinking can be considered!

For instance, one is Romans 3:25
NASB translation:

25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

​

This translation shows how in the past God "passed over" the sins previously committed, but the work of "propitiation" in/by His blood is full payment. The Greek word used here is extremely specific as it is used only in the NT and only in relationship to the blood making complete payment of all sins of all humankind. (see 1 John 2 and 1 John 4).

New International Version (NIV):

25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
​

Here the Greek word is literally mistranslated from propitiation (the proper word) to reconciliation (atonement) a completely different Greek word. It ASSUMES the use of the "mercy seat" (atonement cover) as the appropriate "thought" the writer is making.

As such the translation allows for misunderstanding the complete work of redemption and reconciliation.

It is this "thought translation" work that can be very misleading, and unless one is careful, can lead into teaching wrong doctrine - or misapplying Scriptures.

See also Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 in which the NIV does not translate the work properly.



Just my own thoughts on the matter.

 

[Rippon]

propitiation.

Throughout the NIV, not once do they translate the Greek work properly.

And by use of the word "properly" you assume that that specific technical word be used? You are locked in with just one old Latin-based English word to satisfy your strict requirements?

So the true meaning is lost, and wrong doctrinal thinking can be considered!

You jump to unwarranted conclusions.

For instance, one is Romans 3:25
New International Version (NIV):

25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
​

Here the Greek word is literally mistranslated from propitiation (the proper word) to reconciliation (atonement) a completely different Greek word. It ASSUMES the use of the "mercy seat" (atonement cover) as the appropriate "thought" the writer is making.

Literally it should be mercy seat as the NET Bible,Darby,Weymouth and others have it.

As such the translation allows for misunderstanding the complete work of redemption and reconciliation.

Wow! You are really reaching there aren't you?

The NIV has a footnote at Ro.3:25 :"The Greek for sacrifice of atonement refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant(see Lev.16:15,16)."

See also Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 in which the NIV does not translate the word properly.

Why is the specific word "propitiation" such a thing with you? It could very well be the satisfaction,or the appeasement. For Ro.3:25 the 1996 NLT has :"For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us." Doesn't that qualify as a proper rendering?

For 1 John 2:2 the NET Bible has it worded as "atoning sacrifice" as does Goodspeed, Weymouth and NIV. As I recall the Norlie and MLB render it the same way along with many other English versions.The same applies to 1 John 4:10.

For Heb. 2:17 the NET has "make atonement"just as the NIV words it as well as other good translations. The 96 NLT has "a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people."

 

[Rippon]

From "How To Choose A Translation For All It's Worth"

that is why i am not interested on which textual basis was used, as a good translation came come from TR/Bzt/MT/Ct, but more important to me was the team translation philosophy!

Regardless of what the official translation policy of various translations purport:"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement),their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning)." (p.28)

Authors Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss

 

[InTheLight]

I'm going to say the NIV, although I have scant experience with HCSB, and only a little experience with the ESV.

We're going through Matthew in church and I bring my NIV Study Bible along whereas the pastor uses the ESV. In the course of this series of sermons a couple of verses has stood out to be to be better translated in NIV than the ESV. For example, last Sunday we looked at the demon possessed boy in Matthew 17. In Matthew 17:15 the ESV says the boy "is an epileptic". The NIV says "he has seizures". HCSB has "seizures", NASB, KJV, have "lunatic".

Now obviously, most people with epilepsy are not demon-possessed so I think the ESV does a disservice in its translation, implying that epilepsy is demon-possession. I think the NIV gets it correct with "seizures" by describing what happens to the boy. The literal translation is "moonstruck" which is why the NASB and KJV use "lunatic", although neither "moonstruck" or "lunatic" describe what happens to the boy when the demon attacks him.

 

[Yeshua1]

And by use of the word "properly" you assume that that specific technical word be used? You are locked in with just one old Latin-based English word to satisfy your strict requirements?


Wow! You are really reaching there aren't you?

He has good points though, as I also am quite concerned that due to us becoming Biblical ignorant of basic theological terms and meanings, that we have versions to seem to 'water" down some theological jargon inorder to make it easier for others to read, yet NOT to explain and tie it into the Bible understanding of tht term and concept!

 

[Yeshua1]

Regardless of what the official translation policy of various translations purport:"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement),their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning)." (p.28)

Authors Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss

again, those on the Nkjv/Nasb translations teams though would be ONLY doing changes as they saw better fit the proper rendering, but the truth is that the Nov would seek those changes primarily in order to make it 'read smoother/better", NOT for strictly better defines and interpretes the bible!

 

[Rippon]

I also am quite concerned that due to us becoming Biblical ignorant of basic theological terms and meanings, that we have versions to seem to 'water" down some theological jargon inorder to make it easier for others to read, yet NOT to explain and tie it into the Bible understanding of tht term and concept!

What versions are you referencing?

 

[Rippon]

again, those on the Nkjv/Nasb translations teams though would be ONLY doing changes as they saw better fit the proper rendering, but the truth is that the Nov would seek those changes primarily in order to make it 'read smoother/better", NOT for strictly better defines and interpretes the bible!

I assume that 'Nov' means the NIV to the rest of us.

There you go slandering again. You are claiming that the NIV translators made changes simply for ease of reading and had no concern for relaying the meaning of the originals. That's an absurd charge. And it's sinful to boot. Again,why if you believe that -- are you in a local church body that uses the NIV? That does not add up.

 

[InTheLight]

again, those on the Nkjv/Nasb translations teams though would be ONLY doing changes as they saw better fit the proper rendering, but the truth is that the Nov would seek those changes primarily in order to make it 'read smoother/better", NOT for strictly better defines and interpretes the bible!

What about my example, here?:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2049003&postcount=34

Obviously the NASB usage of the word "lunatic" is both NOT more easily readable and NOT a better definition of what the demon possessed boy experienced.

I've run across several of these over the years where the NIV was both a better interpretation and easier to read vs. the NASB.

 

[Yeshua1]

What about my example, here?:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2049003&postcount=34

Obviously the NASB usage of the word "lunatic" is both NOT more easily readable and NOT a better definition of what the demon possessed boy experienced.

I've run across several of these over the years where the NIV was both a better interpretation and easier to read vs. the NASB.

Perhaps you have, but also there are passages where the nasb would better reflect what the writers and God meant/intended to say to us though...