Featured NIV or ESV?

Yes, that was my point, apparently poorly made. The NIV2011 presents the best translation of all at this particular verse.

 

Because that is what the Greek says. The NASB, which is the most states it similarly to the ESV ...

Matthew 23, NASB
4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."​

It is a Greek idiom, and is indicative of the Pharisees' unwillingness to give relief to those they burden with the Law. It is a much more stark condemnation than "won't lift a finger" in that a finger is incapable of moving a heavy burden. The image given in the original Greek is that the Pharisee will not even pretend to help. In other words, there is not even pretense among the legalists. They don't care if they are seen as unwilling to help. They could do so by giving advise on how to move the burden. They won't even do that.

The NIV, as has been stated tiresomely on this board but apparently without effect, is a thought-for-thought translation, whereas the NASB and ESV are word-for-word translations. This is a much more effective way of conveying the original meaning and context. Don't get me wrong, the NIV is an effective translation, particularly the older versions of it such as your 1984 edition. But thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does.

 

Wrong again tnd. Even an interlinear isn't a word-for-word 15% of the time or more. The NASB and ESV use a phrase-for-phrase and sentence-for-sentence approach much more than you have been led to believe.

The original meaning in context is key and a word-for-word methodology is not going to cut the proverbial mustard. Have you ever heard of the phrase contextual meaning? Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?

 

His point is eseentially correct though, as a version that is more word for word carries over more accurately what the original languages stated, but the thought for thought at times actually clarifies better for us what that means...

I can read literally what was said, but at times it would be hard to grasp, as its going from greek/hebrew into english...

That is why I tend to use all 3, nasb/esv/1984 niv!

 

What something stated and what something means can be two very differnt things altogether.

 

"In all instances" is a pretty hefty order. No translation is going to be 100% on the mark all the time.

As D.A. Cartson has said: "Every reading of a text by a finite being is an interpretation of it. There are more faithful interpretations and less faithful interpretations, more accurate interpretations and less accurate interpretations, but we cannot avoid interpretations."

 

As does the NIV.

 

Correction: 61.1% of the 2011 NIV text is identical with the 1984 NIV text. In addition, 7.9% of verses in the 2011 NIV differ with both the 1984 NIV and the TNIV.

 

Where, exactly are these supposedly large amounts of interpretive liberties taken by the NIV translators that you apparently have not detected in your favorite versions?

Shouldn't the modern reader be the target audience of any contemporay Bible translation?

Are you on a Van-kick when you speak of the theology of its translators?

 

Well, let's face it --if you thought that the NIV has only a few poor interpretations you would not have any issue to complain about. You do indeed think that it is riddled with poor interpretations.

It's hard to believe that you haven't noticed. Van thinks the NIV,NLT and ESV have a pervasive theological Calvinistic bias in a number of translational decisions. You seemed to go along with his view with your "theology of the translators" --although they come from various denominational backgrounds.

 

Science? What in the world does science have to do with my post?

As I quoted from D.A. Carson (and could have quoted from many more) every Bible translation is interpretative.

Okay, so now you think the NIV has a few places in which you disagree with the rendering of some verses --not that it is filled with with poor interpretations. Fair enough.



I have not paid that much attention (I know many hold the ESV to be pervasively Calvinistic, but I did not realize that the argument was the same for the NIV). I don’t really know Van’s “theology of the translators” view, so I refrain from commenting there. I just think that the NIV could have been less interpretative while seeking to reach a contemporary audience – but then again, perhaps not.[/QUOTE]

 

Science has nothing to do with my prior post.

You think the 1984 NIV should have remained static and never improved upon?

As I quoted from D.A. Carson (and I could have quoted from other New Testament Bible scholars) every single Bible translation is filled with interpretation.

But you seem to have backtracked and now feel that in a few places you disagree with some renderings --as is the case with any Bible translation. You are now saying that it is not filled with poor interpretations --"just a couple of places."

Well then, please tell me what you were talking about when you cited the translators' theology.

As I asked before, shouldn't every Bible translation seek to reach a modern audience --wasn't that a major thrust of Tyndale and even John Purvey? It just makes sense.

 

Jon, you had said in post # 51 that liberties were "taken to suit the text to the modern reader and support the theology of its translators."

 

Why I like the ESV

We've been studying through Deuteronomy in adult Sunday school.
Here are some notable translational differences:

Deuteronomy 32:8

NIV 2011 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

ESV 2001 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

NASB 1995 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel.

AV 1873 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people According to the number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:43

NIV 2011 Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

ESV 2001 Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.

NASB 1995 Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.

AV 1873 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: For he will avenge the blood of his servants, And will render vengeance to his adversaries, And will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Rob