Featured CSB review

Insults and deflection on display, an apparent attempt to hide that once again the NIV has been shown to be a will nilly translation.

 

We can agree, the NIV would score much lower, probably off the bottom of the scale.

 

2. Consistency Rate of Word Choices

Ideally, each word (or more precisely each distinctive sense of a word) in the source text corresponds to a unique word in the target text, and each target word corresponds to a unique source word. While this is impossible in actual practice,as exact lexical equivalence between languages is rare, the degree to which the target text approximates this isomorphism is an indication of how consistent the translation is across the whole Bible and how much the translators have tried to express the original text literally.This is done by aggregating all the correspondences found in the reverse interlinear data and calculating the overall ratio of one-to-one mapping.

Consistency Rate of Word Choices Version Score

KJV 73.48%
NASB 70.70%
NKJV 69.52%
ESV 66.89%
NRSV 62.88%
CSB 59.25%
NET 57.06%
NIV 54.19%
NLT 47.25
With this analysis we see the scatter gun approach where consistency is increasingly given lip service, but willy nilly choices are increasingly on display. Overall the NIV is less consistent that the NASB, NKJV, and just about everybody else* other than the NLT.
_______
* everyone else refers to the listed translation versions. I had to add this footnote because Mr. Rippon2 could not grasp the reference.

 

If a person is willingly blind, a sunrise would not be self evident. Liberals attack the meaning of words like willy nilly but a dictionary tells us "he doth protest too much.

 

Pathetic and obviously false claim. Mr. Rippon2 simply makes up nonsense and posts it as soon as possible to sustain his smokescreed.

 

Only a dullard would not recognize your deflection as asinine.

 

Yes, what is mind boggling to me is that the flaws are rather easy to identify, scatter gun and agenda driven word choices, but very few offer suggestions for improvement.

If we think about the analysis (see post #63) the NIV is only about two thirds are consistent as the KJV. And then if you look at the flaws in the posted list, several of straight up corruptions to pour Calvinism into the text. What in tennis are called unforced errors.

 

Yet another worthless response, some translation choices needless are not consistent with a word or phrase meaning, and other verses translation choices are mistranslations to pour Calvinist doctrine into the text.
And once again Mr. Rippon2 claims to be a mind reader. Finally, note the effort to ignore the analysis of the NiV, and instead postulate the non-existent analysis of the LEB. Deflection of display

 

Candor requires mention that the NIV scored about 7% better than the NASB in readability, while scoring about 14% below the NASB in literalness.

The dubious assertion of the study is it is difficult to balance those two goals. My view is that our translations fall short because of under utilization of computer optimization programs.

 

On and on Mr. Rippon2 simply ignores the reality presented in the study, which is the NIV does not consistently translate word or phrase meanings.

 

The above edited quote demonstrates "Mr. Rippon2 simply makes up nonsense and posts it as soon as possible to sustain his smokescreed.

Candor requires mention that the NIV scored about 7% better than the NASB in readability, while scoring about 14% below the NASB in literalness.

The dubious assertion of the study is it is difficult to balance those two goals. My view is that our translations fall short because of under utilization of computer optimization programs.