Any here used the Zondervan Niv Study Bible yet?

[Rippon]

And it did a good job correcting Sarx as used in the 1984 edition, but still see th Gender renderings as being worse than theimprovemets!

You never learn. With the exception of your preference for "flesh", there are many improvements that have been made in the NIV which you have not adequately examined.

If you would do a little investigation of the use of inclusive language in the HCSB and ESV you would lose most of your bias. If the use of inclusive language in those two versions would be considered acceptable then that would whittle down your NIV bias. If the use of inclusive language in the NET (which goes beyond that of the ESV and HCSB) is also acceptable to you --then that leaves a bare fraction of verses that you might object to. But, here you are always at a disadvantage because you don't like to get specific and do homework. You are much more comfortable in merely asserting blanket charges against the NIV. That has been the earmark of your history.

 

[Yeshua1]

You never learn. With the exception of your preference for "flesh", there are many improvements that have been made in the NIV which you have not adequately examined.

If you would do a little investigation of the use of inclusive language in the HCSB and ESV you would lose most of your bias. If the use of inclusive language in those two versions would be considered acceptable then that would whittle down your NIV bias. If the use of inclusive language in the NET (which goes beyond that of the ESV and HCSB) is also acceptable to you --then that leaves a bare fraction of verses that you might object to. But, here you are always at a disadvantage because you don't like to get specific and do homework. You are much more comfortable in merely asserting blanket charges against the NIV. That has been the earmark of your history.

I use the Nasb mainly, and do think that it has much les gender language then the new Niv. And think he Esv still ues it o a lessor degree also!
And not saying tha new Niv is a bad translation, just not as accurate as a more formal one such as the Nasb/NKJV!

 

[Rippon]

I use the Nasb mainly, and do think that it has much les gender language then the new Niv. And think he Esv still ues it o a lessor degree also!

When you say "gender language" you mean inclusive language, because the NASB certainly uses gender language.

And not saying tha new Niv is a bad translation, just not as accurate as a more formal one such as the Nasb/NKJV!

That's your flawed opinion. Permit me to quote again from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss.

"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)

"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form." (p.32)

 

[Yeshua1]

When you say "gender language" you mean inclusive language, because the NASB certainly uses gender language.

That's your flawed opinion. Permit me to quote again from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss.

"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)

"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form." (p.32)

I know what they had written on translation, but would still hold that a formal approach is to be preferred and ued when possible!

 

[Rippon]

I know what they had written on translation, but would still hold that a formal approach is to be preferred and ued when possible!

It is seldom possible because even the so-called formal translations have to modify Greek and Hebrew forms in order to convey the meaning of the text. And, as I had quoted, their philosophy is that of functional equivalence despite their self-proclaimed "formal" approach.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is seldom possible because even the so-called formal translations have to modify Greek and Hebrew forms in order to convey the meaning of the text. And, as I had quoted, their philosophy is that of functional equivalence despite their self-proclaimed "formal" approach.

Would say that there is a general use of formal though, such as in both Nasb/Nkjv, while the general use of DE would be in Niv/Holman. No transltion is always one way or another, but theformal versions to translate word for word much more..

 

[Rippon]

Would say that there is a general use of formal though, such as in both Nasb/Nkjv, while the general use of DE would be in Niv/Holman. No transltion is always one way or another, but theformal versions to translate word for word much more..

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

That is ok, as your preferred version is an acceptable one to use, its just that there are better ones to use for serious bible studies!

Net bible also good for its notes on txtual criticism , but their transltion is way to DE!

 

[Rippon]

"It ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the dynamic equivalent. (D.A. Carson :The King James Version Debate).

 

[Yeshua1]

"It ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the dynamic equivalent. (D.A. Carson :The King James Version Debate).

I agree with that, but those translations such s Nasb/NKJV do it much less than th Niv does, correct?

 

[Rippon]

I agree with that, but those translations such s Nasb/NKJV do it much less than th Niv does, correct?

So with you it is a matter of degree. You acknowledge that all translations use functional equivalence. As was quoted before --all translator decisions are based on a philosophy of functional equivalence.

 

[Yeshua1]

So with you it is a matter of degree. You acknowledge that all translations use functional equivalence. As was quoted before --all translator decisions are based on a philosophy of functional equivalence.

Yes, as not able to befully formal or DE, I just prefer and think the essential formal versions are closer to getting what originals teach us...

 

[Rippon]

Yes, as not able to befully formal or DE, I just prefer and think the essential formal versions are closer to getting what originals teach us...

The term "essentially literal" is meaningless.

 

[Yeshua1]

The term "essentially literal" is meaningless.

Not according Dr Grudem on the Esv team!

 

[Rippon]

Not according Dr Grudem on the Esv team!

Well Duh, of course he believes the ESV is essentially literal. But his belief is essentially silly.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well Duh, of course he believes the ESV is essentially literal. But his belief is essentially silly.

He has more creditials though than either one of us!

 

[Rippon]

He has more creditials though than either one of us!

Is that a disease?

Seriously, the claims made about the ESV in their PR program and in the very preface of the ESV are bogus. I question the claims being made. What is "essentially"-- 88% of the time? Is it 75% or 51%?

Is it only on rare occasions that it uses anything other than a so-called literal approach? Or does the ESV use functionally equivalent expressions a lot more often than as advertised?

Does the ESV step away from being essentially literal only when a wording cannot be expressed word-for-word? Or does the ESV often adopt a more dynamic rendering when a more literal rendering still makes sense in English?

 

[McCree79]

Is that a disease?

Seriously, the claims made about the ESV in their PR program and in the very preface of the ESV are bogus. I question the claims being made. What is "essentially"-- 88% of the time? Is it 75% or 51%?

Is it only on rare occasions that it uses anything other than a so-called literal approach? Or does the ESV use functionally equivalent expressions a lot more often than as advertised?

Does the ESV step away from being essentially literal only when a wording cannot be expressed word-for-word? Or does the ESV often adopt a more dynamic rendering when a more literal rendering still makes sense in English?

Essentially Literal Translation" "seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the text.....the emphasis is on word-for-word correspondance....at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and original languages."...."the principle underlying essentially literal translation is "verbal equivalence, " meaning that the translators have provided the equivalent English word or phrase for everything that is in the orginal text." - Leland Ryken, Professor of English at Wheaton College

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Essentially Literal Translation" "seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the text.....the emphasis is on word-for-word correspondance....at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and original languages."...."the principle underlying essentially literal translation is "verbal equivalence, " meaning that the translators have provided the equivalent English word or phrase for everything that is in the orginal text." - Leland Ryken, Professor of English at Wheaton College

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That would make the Esv more formal ad literal then the revised Niv, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is that a disease?

Seriously, the claims made about the ESV in their PR program and in the very preface of the ESV are bogus. I question the claims being made. What is "essentially"-- 88% of the time? Is it 75% or 51%?

Is it only on rare occasions that it uses anything other than a so-called literal approach? Or does the ESV use functionally equivalent expressions a lot more often than as advertised?

Does the ESV step away from being essentially literal only when a wording cannot be expressed word-for-word? Or does the ESV often adopt a more dynamic rendering when a more literal rendering still makes sense in English?

They would still use DE eneeded, but overall would seek to use word for word when possible.