Featured NIV or ESV?

Rip, gotta disagree with you here. May I ask, how do you determine it is not a dynamic (or, as some say "functional") equivalent translation? Zondervan's editors say it is a dynamic equivalent.

 

You're confused. The NIV translators do not make the transparency claim --the preface of the ESV and ESV's marketing arm do.

And I, of course, do not buy that transparency hype.

 

Google doesn't work in my corner of the world. Care to give me some quotes from Zondervan's editors?

I should turn that around and ask you why you think it should be considered a functionally equivalent translation. What I think you and a lot of other folks have done is to confuse the NIV with the NLTse.

The NIV's actual translation philosophy is rather similar to that of the ESV as Rod Decker has said. And it's even closer to that of the HCSB and NET.

 

It once was closer to being in that line, in the 1984 edition, but drifted more in the Tniv/2011 revisions!

Can't we agree that it is NOT based upon a literal word for word translation philosophy?

 

Rod Decker made his remark about the kinship translational philosophy of both the ESV and NIV in his review of the 2011 NIV.

No version is based "upon a literal word-for-word translational philosophy."

 

Sure. :thumbsup: This is from the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5:

First, let me say that it is obvious that no English translation -- or other-language translation, for that matter -- is able to avoid some functional translation. As Zondervan's article here says, it wouldn't make sense literally translated verbatim from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek directly into the receptor language. Therefore, to unequivocally say "That's a formal equivalent" or "That's a functional equivalent" is inaccurate. They all have some of both. As the article points out, those listed in the second or third groups are less formal to greater or lesser degrees than those in the first group. Nonetheless, the NIV is not a formal equivalent. Otherwise it would be listed among the first group.

I disagree with that last statement in the article regarding "communicating accurately the meaning of the text," because a thought-for-thought translation -- a terminology I note Zondervan avoids -- can't possibly convey the literal concept of a phrase or passage if it isn't attempting to use the literal verbal meaning. That does not prevent those functional equivalent versions from being good Bibles, but they fall short, in my opinion, of being able to truly conceive and communicate the thoughts from the original languages.

That's a fair question, and I think the answer lies in Zondervan's encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with the NIV short of the issues that I believe come from a sacrifice of accuracy in a thought-for-thought versus a word-for-word rendering. Any version that places a priority on detailed accuracy rather than readability is going to be naturally superior, in my opinion. The NIV's focus is on the later.

Also, what is not clear, without relying on guided investigation for which there is no space, are the inconsistencies in translation by the NIV. It uses some irregular source texts which I believe result in deviations that do not hold up to scholarly scrutiny. There are also several issues with both translation and English text errors that have escaped careful inspection and revision. That is not to say that the NIV is particularly bad or that the NASB is without flaws. All in all, it comes down to a decision based on preference, and the NIV is not the recipient of the same level of "attention to detail" as the NASB.

I can't agree with that, given that the ESV is much farther toward the end of the formal equivalency scale than the NIV.

And I agree with that, though I think the HCSB gets unduely panned by its use of contractions. Some of its critics would be silent if the "Don'ts" and "Can'ts" were translated into more formal English.

 

From the article :"Mediating versions somewhere in between are NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NAB, Net, NJB, and REB."

So no, you have not demonstrated that the article argued for the NIV being a functionally equivalent translation. It is mediating as I said.

A sense-for-sense,phrase-for-phrase --sentence-for-sentence translation is a faithful means of translating Scripture. It has an ancient pedigree. There is no such thing as a one to one correspondence between the original languages and English. So the latter is in operation in Bible translations because of necessity. What you phrase as "the literal verbal meaning" is a no-go. You have to flesh-out your nebulous terminology.

You are "conveying" some foggy thinking. What constitues "detailed accuracy" in your opinion? The NIV balances faithfulness to the originals with readibility. But there is no perfect balance in any translation. Many times accuracy demands a restructuring of the original sentence structure,punctuation and grammar as I had quoted before.

I wish you would be clear. ;-)

Such as...?

Such as...?

No, it's not. Dr. Rod Decker,recently departed to glory said:"There are far more idiomatic, functional equivalents in the ESV than most people would ever suspect based on the popular perception of this 'essentially literal' translation."

 

I sit corrected. But note the balance.

Now when ESV promoters say things like "The ESV offers a direct and unobstructed view of the original text" a sense of incredulity emerges to one having common sense. The ESV is not as all-fired secondarily inspired as some think! ;-)

But ESV hawkers do claim that the ESV is transparent to the original autographs.

 

It does indeed go overboard with its abundance of conjunctions and very colloquial expressions like "guys" for example.

Do not confuse proper English with formal equivalency though.

 

In post number 43 you had said:"But thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does."

And I told you in reply:"Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?"

 

I provided examples where the NIV mistranslated verses, and examples where the ESV mistranslated verses, they are both unreliable for a study bible.

Lets compare the NIV 2011 with the NIV 84, and TNIV.

About 61% of the verses of the NIV 2011 are exactly the same as the NIV84. So about 39% of the verses differ. Of these about 31% read the same as the TNIV. And the remaining about 8% are new versions, differing from both the 84 and TNIV.

Thus, the wholesale gender inclusive mistranslations found in the TNIV are also preserved in the NIV 2011, less about 1% of the verses being returned to the NIV84 versions.

So those who want to study as closely as they can the original message as found in the original language, in light of its grammar and historical word meanings, must turn away from the NIV2011 and the ESV.

1) Sanctify means sanctify

2) From means from

3) Son of man is a title for the Christ and should not be removed for political correctness.

 

Ya must've missed this one

This is a case of Van vs. Van. Who's gonna' win?

 

Come on now. That's an absurd thing to extrapolate from that quote.

Do you think Martin Luther ran the risk of misinterpretation and decontextualizing Scripture with his translational philosophy?

"Therefore I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses...Words are to serve the meaning,not meaning the words.

...if it were translated everywhere word for word...and not for the most part according to the sense, no one would understand it...We have taken care to use language that is clear and everybody can understand, without perverting the sense.

Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather, he must see to it --once he understands the Hebrew author --that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows."

[From Ernst R. Wendland : Martin Luther --The Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation]

 

Talk about taking a blind leap! You make wild assertions and from that basis contruct completely invalid conclusions.

Many times the identical reading of the text between the TNIV and 2011 NIV have nothing whatsoever to do with inclusive language. The 2011 NIV took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV. (By the way, I agreed with most of the renderings in the TNIV). And by what authority to you call them "gender inclusive mistranslations" Van?

No, it is not a title for Christ alone. Deal with Job 25:6,Ps. 146:3 and Is. 51:12 for starters. Ezekiel was called 'son of man' many times. And of course the term "sons of men" always mean people. Do your homework.

Of course Christ Himself was called the Son of man. And He called Himself that. But you can't deny that many times, especially in the Old Testament the phrase meant a human being. And 'sons of men' meant humanity.

 

Thomas Nass in his article :Some Thoughts on the ESV Translation said,among other things:

"Next, if one works, at all with the ESV and the original languages, one can find many examples where the ESV does not translate literally, and no footnote is added...they are not really doing what they promised." (p.8)

"In reality, however, the ESV and NIV follow similiar methods, only the NIV pursues functional equivalence and inclusive language more consistently and to a greater degree." (p.18)

Kevin De Young, a proponent of the ESV has an article called On The Merits of the ESV:

"The difference between the NIV and ESV is not a chasm, but one of degree."

Dave Brunn, author of One Bible,Many Versions:

"It appears that the ideal target range of the HCSB and the NET are fairly close to that of the NIV." (p.69)

 

Another reason I prefer them is that I have a Compact reference bible in the KJV and a thin-line NKJV Bible which are perfect for the open air preacher. have 2 ESV Study Bibles, and a TrueTone ESV. These are not very good for street evangelism. Also much of my highlighting and such is in the KJV and the NIV a quick second.