Featured NIV or ESV?

You're a confusing fella Jon. You had said "interpretation is present in translation." I called that view rather weak. Now you are saying that you believe "that all translation involves interpretation." I certainly don't take issue with that. Do you now agree with that proposition? It's hard to follow you. Do you have short term memory loss?

You see, this is another example of inconsistency on your part. You are hopping around from position to yet another position --at least taking your words at face value. Now you would allow options A and b, but at the same time you claim that you are not advancing multiple alternatives in the text? You had said (in reference to Ro. 1:5 that "it could be understood either way --obedience as an act of faith or faith as an act of obedience." Those are two different things. How are able to put multiples in the translation unless you follow the way of the Amplified Bible? Translators have to make a singular decision in the text. Alternatives can be put in footnotes.

You're not making sense again Jon. Every version uses interpretation. "I do use the interpretation" in reference to the NIV is kind of hokey on your part.

Tell you what. You said you read what Fee, Strauss, and Carson said regarding interpretation in the translation process. I want to be sure you understand what they said. Feel free to differ with them, but give sound reasons as to why you differ. Take them line by line. That will make things very clear.

 

Here we go again...

For some inexplicable reason I am not able to quote you AGAIN Jon.

I do not have Ryken's book with me. But have you checked out my old thread I have revived which deals with his book? I brought it back to life just for you.

His thematic thoughts are insubstantial. And his example of Romans 1:17a is pointless.

By the way, the NIV reads this way:"For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed..."

The ISV reads very much like it.

The NET Bible:"For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel..."

NASB and ESV:"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed..."

New Testament scholars have debated what genitive to use for a long time. What you and Ryken regard as "the literal" is no such thing; it's an approximation. And anyway, even if a given group of English words are employed in the effort to render the expression literally --more than likely it wouldn't be the best way to go. Very literal doesn't necessarily mean more exact.

 

Thanks JonC, for pointing out the significant difference between a thought for thought thematic interpretation, and a word for word linguistic interpretation.

Both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV.

 

Hi In the Light, I do not think you understand at all, since I believe you claim there is no difference between the NIV and the NASB as far as presenting what the inspired word says. God's word says from the foundation of the world, and both the ESV and NIV say before the foundation of the world. Why study corrupted text?

 

NO translation is inspired though, and all legit ones are the word of God to us in English, so while the nas is my preferred version to use, the esv/Niv are also good translations!

 

"Many assume that what they are reading is a translation of the original."

I find that a curious statement. Your favorite translation is the NASB. Isn't that a translation of the original? You speak in riddles. Every Bible version is a translation of the original.

 

That is my view concerning any version.

 

The NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles because they intentionally present what they think scripture should say, rather than what it actually says. From cannot be translated as before. Those that study such translations are really studying the words of men and not God.

What I cannot understand is that many advocate disregarding the grammar and historical word meanings in the name of readability. If they agree a paraphrase should not be a study bible, then why not go to the least paraphrasic translation.

 

1) Interpretation is present in translation.

2) All translation involves interpretation.

You think that both statements are equivalent. But 1) is rather mild and passive. In # 2 all is a determiner relating to every translation. The second is strong in comparison to the weaker #1.

But if you want to believe that both mean the same thing --go for it. The way I understand English differs from your understanding.

I don't know why you insist on being so defensive. All translation is interpretation as Fee and Strauss argue in their book on Bible translation.Other New Tesament scholars state the same kind of thing.

Funny. When I see inconsistency I can't see consistency.

It sure sounds like it when you have said that Romans 1:5 :"could be understood either way."

A) obedience as an act of faith
B) faith as an act of obedience

How can a translation that can only put one rendering in the text employ both expressions without sounding like an Amplified Bible?

Define your terms or what you think Ryken means. Your example of Romans 1:17a didn't demonstrate anything. What rule of orthodox translation principles did the NIV reading violate?

When you speak in such a convoluted way how am I to make sense of things?

1)A particular original passage has multiple intended interpretations (because I assume you don't mean the whole canon of Scripture).

2)Be faithful to the original text.

3)Leave the interpretation(s) up to the reader.

So the original pericope has several interpretations. Will your preferred translation of that pericope have those multiple interpretations?

How can the interpretation(s) of the original be left up to the reader? Are you saying that the original text is deliberately vague --and so the rendering must be put in a stylistically nebulous fashion?

Please be clear Jon. I honestly cannot follow you much of the time.

 

The following snips are from The Challenge of Bible Translation edited by Scorgie, Strauss and Voth. Chapter one is penned by Moises Silva. It's called Are Translators Traitors? some Personal Reflections.

[T]he unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV. Here is a fairly word-for-word rendering of Hebrews 7:20-22(but respecting the word order required by English):

And according to which [= inasmuch as it was] not without and oath --for on the one hand the ones having become priests are without an oath, but he with an oath through the one saying to him, "The Lord swore and will not regret: 'You are a priest forever' " --according to so much Jesus became a guarantee of a better covenant.

...The ESV, however, renders it this way:

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.' " This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

By (1) breaking up one long sentence into three, then (2) transforming a binary comparative structure (with a long parenthesis in the middle) into a set of independent clauses, and finally (3) adding quite a few items absent from the Greek ("it was, "formerely," "were made such," "was made," "This makes") the ESV successfully clarifies the statement to modern readers and makes its meaning clear to them. But to call such a rendering literal (let alone word-for-word) is a fantasy. (pgs.39,40.)

 

Not opposite --but certainly not equivalent.

Wings are present in birds.
All birds use wings in flight.

Do the two statements above have the same meaning?

 

For review Jon.