Comments on: Why I Switched to the NIV (Part 1) – A Response to Kevin DeYoung

By: alieninthisland

alieninthisland — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:42:10 +0000

Theory may be a necessary first step, but one needs to be careful that a particular theory is not too broadly applied with checking it. One theory may work well with poetry but fail in a horatory discourse. I am interested to see what you come up with.

By: Andrew Rozalowsky

Andrew Rozalowsky — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:23:14 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts Alien.
While I agree going through Scripture after Scripture for translation comparison is not a bad endeavour to see how it plays out in the real world, the first question that has to be asked to make it worthwhile is, “what makes a good translation?” This is why discussing translation theory, I believe, is the first question since comparing translations and asking which is better is non-sensical unless we can talk about the theories that underlie them. There needs to be a standard. Without that standard the question of which translation is better is all relative. That’s why I won’t spend a lot of time in this series comparing translations in use, only using them where appropriate to illustrate a point.

By: Andrew Rozalowsky

Andrew Rozalowsky — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:17:23 +0000

Jason, I have no personal connection to Carson so this is just based on my listening to his sermons and lectures. I believe he has used the TNIV for some years (perhaps since it came out) and my guess is he used the NIV84 prior to the release of the TNIV though you’d have to ask him or someone closer to him. I wonder if he now uses the NIV2011 in his preaching or whether he still uses the TNIV.

By: Jason P. Kees

Jason P. Kees — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:21:39 +0000

Fantastic post Andrew. Though I am not particularly keen to the NIV, but your post made my wheels turn.

Do you know if Carson uses the NIV1984 or the newer one?

By: mvpcworshipblog

mvpcworshipblog — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:30:31 +0000

Dear Alien,

For someone who is skilled in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, reading large selections from both translations and comparing them to the original can be a worthwhile project.

The problem with picking a selection suitable for a blog post (or even a full length paper) is that it can always appear to be cherry picking.

David

By: alieninthisland

alieninthisland — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:59:25 +0000

I don’t particularly like the NIV, but that is mostly because I disagree so often with decisions it makes. I think the TNIV fixed a lot of these issues, but the TNIV is blacklisted by most people I would be speaking to so I have no plans to use it widely. I do like a lot about the ESV, but I am more often frustrated by decisions it makes more so than most translations.

I think you and DeYoung make good points, but the best way to make one’s point here, I think, would be to select a variety of scripture and see which translation better handles them, pointing out the strong points and weak points in each situation. It is difficult to make broad statements of superiority without seeing how those ‘superiorities’ play out in the real world so to speak.

By: mvpcworshipblog

mvpcworshipblog — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:09:53 +0000

Thanks Andrew.

I would like to point out a problem with the modern party spirit around translations. If you go to the ESV web page and look at the Leaders who are endorsing the ESV, you will quickly notice that only a handful of them have any competency to evaluate a translation.

Why would anyone follow the translation judgment of someone who acknowledges that he can’t read Hebrew when 3/4 of the Bible is written in Hebrew? Yet, that is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today.

Doesn’t it make sense to get advice on heart surgery from a heart surgeon and on architecture from an architect? Why then wouldn’t those choosing a translation pay more attention to men like Stanley Porter, D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Gary Pratico, Doug Stuart, Gordon Fee, etc …, than to those who have no obvious competence in what is a very challenging field? Part of the answer must be that western evangelicalism is as obsessed with celebrity as our broader culture is.

David
p.s. The above is not meant as a criticism of the ESV translation but the way the ESV has become the new cult Bible of American evangelicalism.

By: Matt Mikalatos (@mattmikalatos)

Matt Mikalatos (@mattmikalatos) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:00:06 +0000

Andrew, thank you for this. I get so tired of people using the ESV as the new “King James Only” scripture. The fact is that every translation is simply that… a translation. Some are better for certain uses than others. The ESV is certainly not more “literary”… it’s stilted and inflexible in many places, and far too formal for the diction in the original languages.

Anyway, it was refreshing to hear another point of view. Thanks.