Featured NIV or ESV?

t

I can understand well either the 1977 nas/1984 Niv, should there was really no need for an update on either of those two!

And the esv/HCSb were boh fine as originally translated...

To me , the biggest reason to revise/upfate a translation would be ONLY if the sources used had an update, like from say earlier edition of the Greek texts, to the lastest one..

 

there are theological tinged words that have been carefully defined and used in the church, such as propiation/atonement, so would much rather have a version keep those words then changing it to something "easier to understand"...

And when we go too much for phrase by phrase/thought by thought, do get sometimes extra understandings placed in there, more like a contemporary commentary as to what it should have meant, not what was intended!

 

You know it is a hoot and a half when you deride the NIV and other Bible translations of dumbing things down when you can't even spell key words related to the subject. It's p-r-o-p-i-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

And if you want Bible versions to retain words like "atonement" that's what the versions I have listed do. What's your beef?

And that's exactly what most Bible translations do --as I pointed out to you on another thread. It's a principle that Jerome and John Purvey sought to implement. And it makes sense --sense-for-sense. word-for-word is impossible to maintain.

 

Of course there were good reasons for revisions of both of those translations. Do you think that all Bible should be locked in place --never to be updated?

You are quite mistaken. "Boh" were and are in need of refinement.

 

Experiencing technical difficulties

Jon, it's strange. I am having problems quoting you. I can pull up your post 77 which I have already commented upon, but I can't quote your post #81. I have tried multiple times. I can quote posts by others, but not you. I will try again at another time.

 

A good book defending the NIV is called

How to Choose a Translation for all its worth.

I use both translations often and can see what you are saying about the ESV and its sometimes awkward english. I read through all the gospels and saw this often. Personally I would use the NIV for devotional, personal reading, and sometimes open air preaching. However the ESV is superior for word studies.Both translations have their place and everyone has a different opinion on the matter.

 

Knock it off. This is a thread on bible translation and not theology. Plenty of Calvinists have worked with Arminian to write good books on bibliology.

 

I don't know entirely about that. I use it sometimes when I open air preach and it stands out as being more clear in some passages. However I primarily use the KJV/NKJV which are more literal than the ESV in my open air.

 

How so?

The problem with any of those translations is NOT that they must get updated every few years, as that should only happen when there was an improvenent in their textual bases, but major problem is that many Christians have become "dumbed down", as they don't know the theological wording used in the Bible, nor much of its theology/doctrines!

the Holy Spirit inspired each word down to us in the originals, so why change the word that He choose?

 

if ones holds to the Verbal plenary sense of inspiration, how does one translate thought for thought?

 

Your question doesn't make any sense. But if you are linking a belief of verbal plenary inspiration with more formal equivalece translations exclusively --you are barking up the wrong tree. Carson, Strauss and Decker all think the charge is nonsense. The recently deceased Dr. Decker said that Ryken's link [of formal equivalence and verbal inspiration]" is amateurish and indefensible."

 

With your level of grammar,punctuation and spelling --you have no room to admonish anyone about dumbing-down anything.

Haven't you heard? The originals were not written in English. I know that must come as a shock to you --but we don't use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in our English translations. Therefore, the words He choose [sic] will not be the words in any English translation.

 

I said nothing about dynamic equivalence in the NIV. You must have confused me with another Rippon. ;-)

Huh? I argued no such thing. It's like you are responding to another poster altogether

All of those words but propitiation are present in the NIV.

Good.

I read where it occurs 42 in the Gospel of John.

It uses "continued" in 1 John 2:19.

Also "remains","remained","lives","continues" etc. In 1 John 3:15 it has "resides."

 

Have you forgotten so soon Jon? As I have said, the NIV has "in your hearts revere Christ as Lord." Isaiah 8:13 reads :"The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."

Are you under the impression that ties between the Old Testament and the New have to read identically?

 

Not true. It is shown in side by side translations through the use of good lexicons that the NASB and the ESV get the gist of any given passage far more accurately than the KJV, though the KJV is still a powerful translation and very effective in the ministry.

 

Okay...

No Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV and ESV are very much alike although the ESV suffers from a lot of awkward,unnatural English. And the NIV is still more closely aligned with the NASBU than it is with the translations on the right side of the spectrum.

The ESV is not so transparent as you apparently think. And the NIV is not a dynamic equivalent version though it uses more than the ESV and NASBU.

It is the best all round English Bible translation. It is a mediating version along with the HCSB,NET,ISV,NAB etc. It's right in the middle. It has things in common with the ESV,NRSV,NASBU & Co. as well as the NLT. It does read well, but it's not easy reading. The NLTse reads even more clearly. The scholarship is top-notch. It has beaten all comers for years. And it really is an international Bible version.

I like aspects of a number of English Bible translations such as the MLB, Norlie, NLTse, NASBU, Phillips, NRSV, NJB, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Lattimore, HCSB. The REB is my favorite as far as elegance goes. However, the NIV has the best elements of the former ones. And it has its share of weaknesses too, as all translations have. But all in all, it demonstrates its versatility in covering most of the bases need in a good Bible translation.

 

I still can't quote from your post # 81 and I don't know why!