Featured NIV or ESV?

1 Timothy 1:16
E - But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience
N - But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience

The NIV leaves no question that ἅπας means “immense" (or an earlier NIV, "unlimited") instead of "perfect."

Romans 1:5
E - through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
N - Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

Thankfully the NIV clarifies what is not actually said in the text to ease interpretation. Whether I agree or disagree with the interpretation is not the issue…IMHO it is not the translators job to make the text easier for me to understand. Instead it is their job to accurately translate the original text.

Psalm 24:10
E - The LORD of hosts,
he is the King of glory!
NIV - The LORD Almighty—
he is the King of glory.

Yes, the “Lord of hosts” is difficult to understand. I just don’t know that it literally means the “Lord Almighty.” (Not, of course, that God is not Almighty…just that I am not sure that the Lord of Hosts speaks solely to His omnipotence).

Rippon,

You noted in a previous thread the NIV bashing of Leland Ryken. I got a copy of "The Word of God in English" and read it (most anyway) over the weekend while on vacation. I do not see "bashing" here, but he is opinionated against non-literal translation (focusing on word for word). Thank you for the reference, insofar as his opinion is reflected in that book I am in agreement with the author (the above examples were noted in his book).

I do find it interesting that some tend to cry foul to interpretive weaving when it comes to the US Constitution but don't seem to mind if it is in Scripture.

 

My preference doesn't really matter when it comes to translations, but I do want to know the text. Perhaps “Armies” does represent “Hosts” but then again, perhaps the author was not being so specific (what if it is the heavenly realm as a whole….why decide and narrow a meaning for us where the text has not done so?).

I know you didn’t recommend his opinion, nor did you “take him to task for that awful book.” You mentioned in passing that he called the NIV mildly dynamic equivalent and was a “NIV basher.” But I take that as a recommendation to check it out for myself. In truth, he objects to the translation but I find no evidence that his opinion is not warranted (regardless of how one “feels” about the NIV or ESV). You probably find it awful because you realize what he states is true but you come to different conclusions in the end. But I will grant you that I need to re-read his work. He does seem biased to the ESV and perhaps so as he was part of that translation team. Stressing the importance of retaining literary devises/methods in translation I do not see that he points out that this is at somewhat of a cost (it is less transparent to the original in some sense…it has to alter wording to honor structure).

 

The difference, IMHO, is faithfulness to the words vs faithfulness to the author’s intention. The problem is, IMHO, that we all may have varying ideas about the author’s intention while the words are less subjective. Of course, even in choosing the English equivalent there is interpretation involved – but the primary focus is the text…not the thoughts of the author or really even the reader. Interpretation as a focus should, IMHO, come afterwards in the form of teaching, preaching, commentary, etc. based on a representation of the original text. D.A. Carson once pointed out that Scripture does not alleviate the necessity of the evangelist, preacher and teacher…but it seems that that is what many desire (an easy to understand and clear interpretation of Scripture in place of the difficulties associated in the text…to include difficulties that may have been present to the original audience). We simply live in a society that doesn't want to study difficult material when someone else can offer an interpretation for us.

 

Yes, I know Carson's support of the TNIV. I am not looking for an ally in Carson, just pointing out the need of interpretation beyond the translation (not just the NIV).

Before I comment I need to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that interpretation IS the translation process (I ask because I thought it obvious that while related they are different disciplines, even in a secular context)? Second, and here I think you may misunderstand my statement, you believe that teaching and preaching Scripture (explaining the meaning of the text) is application?

If I do understand you correctly, then here are my observations.

Translation is “the process of translating words or text from one language into another.” Translation is rendering the text clearly and accurately into a target language. Interpretation is the “action of explaining the meaning of something.” Interpretation includes transforming culturally-specific references into analogous statements that are meaningful to the target audience. Translation is less concerned with explaining the meaning to a target audience than it is with accurately representing the text while interpretation strives to explain what is meant by the translated text. Translation is focused less on the reader and more on the original text. Interpretation is concerned less with representing the actual text and more with conveying the meaning behind the original text. In short, while necessary and related, interpretation is not the "translation process."

Second, preaching and teaching is not application (although application is typically a portion of sermons and lessons...normally after the passage has been "unpacked" or explained).

 

I think that that is what both the ESV and NIV try to do. The difference in my example is that the text is not as specific as the NIV presents it to be. Perhaps the original author was thinking that obedience is from faith. But we do not know. As presented in the original text and the ESV (and NASB) it can be understood either way (obedience as a result of faith or faith as an act of obedience) while with the NIV it can only mean obedience from faith. I am confident that one can find such flaws in any translation and I am not trying to argue the NIV as an awful translation. I do disagree with the mentality that we need a Bible that clearly states what was diligently studied centuries ago. I do like the goal of representing the text as clearly as possible, knowing of course that there will always be issues in any translation.

 

Rippon,

I did pay attention to what you presented. I do agree that the translator also interprets (although I disagree with your comment that "interpretation is translation"). My comment that all translation involves interpretation is weak?...well, I disagree. We are not speaking of the translation process but the final translation submitted as Scripture.

I NEVER suggested that the translation present multiple interpretation and am torn between attributing this to dishonesty on your part or simple "misinterpretation." But I will clarify. If the original test allows for interpretations A and B, then the translation should also allow for interpretations A and B (not offer B as the only conclusion, as the NIV does in the passage I mentioned). For example, I would disagree with translating "the first day" in Genesis as "the first 24 hour period," although I would agree with the interpretation.

While I do not prefer the NIV, I have no problem with it and I do use the interpretation. I find it less reliable, but you can chalk that up to preference if you prefer.