Which Bible Translation Should I use?

[Rippon]

The header is the name of a new book I just bought. It has chapters by leading advocates of the NLT,HCSB and NIV as well as the ESV. It is edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger and David A. Croteau.

Wayne Grudem says that "The ESV translators do not find the term "formal equivalence" to be an accurate term to describe an essentially literal translation. It puts too much emphasis on the 'form' of the sentences,which refers especially to the order of the words. That is a low priority in essentially literal translations,for the primary goal is to represent not just the form but the meaning of every word of the original...It is unfortunate that some critics of the ESV continue to call it a 'formal equivalence'translation. They reject the idea of formal equivalence because they say, 'form' must be subordinate to meaning in translation. Of course, we also believe this,so this kind of criticism of formal equivalence is just tearing down a straw man." (pages 44,45)

Hmmm...very interesting. I never realized that Grudem and company took umbrage at the term formal equivalence and how that was applied to the ESV. Grudem certainly is at odds with Ryken who says that form equals meaning. But here Grudem is saying that form must be subordinate to meaning.

Grudem also differs with Ryken when the former puts the NIV "midway between essentially literal and dynamic equivalence." (page 47)

 

[Rippon]

From the same book E.Roy Clendenen who represents the Holman Christian Standard Bible says the following:

"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such think as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation." (118)

Exactly. That's what I have been maintaining all along! I am glad that he has said the above. And again, he represents the HCSB,not the NIV. So you folks might appreciate it all the more knowing it wasn't from an NIV guy.

By the way,on the next page he says that literal does not mean accurate. He and I are on the same page. How about all of you?

 

[Yeshua1]

From the same book E.Roy Clendenen who represents the Holman Christian Standard Bible says the following:

"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such think as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation." (118)

Exactly. That's what I have been maintaining all along! I am glad that he has said the above. And again, he represents the HCSB,not the NIV. So you folks might appreciate it all the more knowing it wasn't from an NIV guy.

By the way,on the next page he says that literal does not mean accurate. He and I are on the same page. How about all of you?

need to translate it in a way that would have been the way that the original reaqders would have seen it as meaning as close as possible!

 

[Rippon]

need to translate it in a way that would have been the way that the original reaqders would have seen it as meaning as close as possible!

Oh,by that I take it you are a fan of dynamic equivalence.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh,by that I take it you are a fan of dynamic equivalence.

no, am a big believer in the scriptures should be allowed to keep the meanings intended for them whren they were first written! If God wanted it to be just men as pastors, would have that in there, and not translate it to allow for women also! just an example!

 

[Rippon]

no, am a big believer in the scriptures should be allowed to keep the meanings intended for them when they were first written!

So do the translators of nearly every Bible version out there. nothing new.

If God wanted it to be just men as pastors, would have that in there, and not translate it to allow for women also! just an example!

And what mainstream Bible version translates any passage as deeming it possible for a woman to be a pastor;or Bishop as the KJV has it?

 

[Yeshua1]

So do the translators of nearly every Bible version out there. nothing new.



And what mainstream Bible version translates any passage as deeming it possible for a woman to be a pastor;or Bishop as the KJV has it?

just was using that as an example!
probably better one to cite as how one should NOT translate the bible woould be the message, or Queen james bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

So do the translators of nearly every Bible version out there. nothing new.



And what mainstream Bible version translates any passage as deeming it possible for a woman to be a pastor;or Bishop as the KJV has it?

Also, though accuracy is the goal of those who translate versions, would say taht it good to include as much as possible the word and sentance structure of the greek into the english language, for sometimes in order to avoid it read 'literal", they translate and miss the mark!

 

[JimmyH]

In William D. Mounce's "Greek For The Rest Of Us" he has a 20 some odd page explanation of rhyme and reason of translation philosophy. Until I read that I didn't fully understand all of the ramifications of why translators come to the conclusions they do. Reading it gave me more confidence in the ESV, NASB and 1984 NIV. The latest gender neutral translations are a bit too far afield for me.

 

[Yeshua1]

In William D. Mounce's "Greek For The Rest Of Us" he has a 20 some odd page explanation of rhyme and reason of translation philosophy. Until I read that I didn't fully understand all of the ramifications of why translators come to the conclusions they do. Reading it gave me more confidence in the ESV, NASB and 1984 NIV. The latest gender neutral translations are a bit too far afield for me.

many would hold that same opinion!

 

[Rippon]

In William D. Mounce's "Greek For The Rest Of Us" he has a 20 some odd page explanation of rhyme and reason of translation philosophy. Until I read that I didn't fully understand all of the ramifications of why translators come to the conclusions they do. Reading it gave me more confidence in the ESV, NASB and 1984 NIV. The latest gender neutral translations are a bit too far afield for me.

Perhaps you do not realize that Dr.Mounce was on the 2011 NIV team as well as the ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you do not realize that Dr.Mounce was on the 2011 NIV team as well as the ESV.

that would be strange, as one version went for gender inclusive renderings, while the other did not?

 

[Rippon]

that would be strange, as one version went for gender inclusive renderings, while the other did not?

The ESV has its share of inclusive language. Shh...it's a big secret.

 

[Yeshua1]

The ESV has its share of inclusive language. Shh...it's a big secret.

that is true,but not nearly as much as the Niv 2011 does, correct?

 

[Rippon]

that is true,but not nearly as much as the Niv 2011 does, correct?

Yes,it's a matter of degree;not that the NIV is such a wholly different animal.

If the ESV translators would put some of their footnote alternatives in the body of the text the ESV and NIV would seem to be of very similiar natures (with the exception of the poor English the former uses).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes,it's a matter of degree;not that the NIV is such a wholly different animal.

If the ESV translators would put some of their footnote alternatives in the body of the text the ESV and NIV would seem to be of very similiar natures (with the exception of the poor English the former uses).

Just curious as to how much more/less they both have when compared to the nasb/Nkjv/kjv versions?

Doesn't the Nrsv have even more so than the Niv 2011?

 

[Rippon]

Also, though accuracy is the goal of those who translate versions, would say taht it good to include as much as possible the word and sentance structure of the greek into the english language,...

Propa spellin' two!

"As much as possible" are the operative words. Even what are known as the "most literal" translations have to rearrange the sentence structure of the Greek. And very often there is not a one-to-one word correspondence between the two languages. It is only a matter of degree between say the ESV and HCSB;not a world of difference.

And haven't you heard that literal is not necessarily the best or most accurate?

 

[Yeshua1]

Propa spellin' two!

"As much as possible" are the operative words. Even what are known as the "most literal" translations have to rearrange the sentence structure of the Greek. And very often there is not a one-to-one word correspondence between the two languages. It is only a matter of degree between say the ESV and HCSB;not a world of difference.

And haven't you heard that literal is not necessarily the best or most accurate?

would say that a formal translation would have the chance to be closer to original intent of writer though!

 

[Rippon]

Some Snips From Thomas Nass

from his article called : Some thoughts on the ESV and Bible translation

:"Unfortunately,ESV promoters sometimes demonize the NIV. They accuse the NIV of following a faulty translation method and of distorting the Word of God when it is freerer than the ESV. 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)

"It is linguistically naive to say that one can translate without inserting interpretation,or that interpretation needs to be inserted only rarely. Regularly,on every page,just to put something on paper,a translator has to make interpretive decisions. This includes translators who are producing an eseentially literal translation." (p.11)

"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. I am not critical of the way the ESV translates in these cases,because they are properly trying to bring over the meaning for contemporary readers. It's just that they are not really doing what they promised to do." (8)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

from his article called : Some thoughts on the ESV and Bible translation

:"Unfortunately,ESV promoters sometimes demonize the NIV. They accuse the NIV of following a faulty translation method and of distorting the Word of God when it is freerer than the ESV. 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)

"It is linguistically naive to say that one can translate without inserting interpretation,or that interpretation needs to be inserted only rarely. Regularly,on every page,just to put something on paper,a translator has to make interpretive decisions. This includes translators who are producing an eseentially literal translation." (p.11)

"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. I am not critical of the way the ESV translates in these cases,because they are properly trying to bring over the meaning for contemporary readers. It's just that they are not really doing what they promised to do." (8)

That's ok...I use NIV when I want to understand something...then the new king James to solidify my understanding. Ive no idea how anyone can tolerate KJ in the old speaking pattern!