Bible Versions

[John Reece]

An issue with the ESV was pointed out by Daniel B. Wallace:

"The elegance of the translation is excellent, and the translation is very good. I am happy to endorse the ESV, with the understanding that the scholarship, largely because it was restricted to evangelicals and was, within this realm, not as broadly based as some would like to see, took a downturn from previous iterations. (The translation committee, for example, used some irritating evangelical ‘trump cards’ in places where the text really does not say what they want it to say. No cardinal doctrine is involved in these places, but they nevertheless are problems in regard to accuracy.)"

https://bible.org/article/net-niv-es...cal-comparison

So, despite the fact that no translation is flawless, I would nevertheless like to steer clear of the ESV for the above reason(s) alone.

I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here, wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

[Paprika]

Thanks for the recommendations everyone.

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse markings, impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

[Scrawly]

I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here, wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

[Scrawly]

There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse marking impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

Thanks I am aware of it being online. Good point about the footnotes..

[John Reece]

Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

[Obsidian]

John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

[John Reece]

John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

Excellent point, with which I totally agree.

Being primarily oriented in the Greek NT, when dealing with English versions I have become inclined to ignore the feministic avoidance of masculine language in the TNIV and NRSV. By the way, I also noticed that stratagem ― a plural term used to translate a singular term, just to avoid translating a masculine word ― in NET when I perused it yesterday (ETA: however, not so in John 3:27, and maybe nowhere in NET ― perhaps it was another form of gender neutral language in place of a masculine word).

I use TNIV (the only NIV in Accordance) and NRSV a lot in my language threads, because they are convenient to use and usually accurate in terms of meaning; however, when I come to a verse in which a plural form occurs solely to avoid rendering a masculine word, I leave Accordance and go out of my way to fetch the text from an online source for ESV. But there are also sources to use for that purpose in Accordance that would serve just as well.

I had used RSV from the time I first started reading the Bible in 1952. I had looked forward to the publication of the NRSV in 1989; however, when it arrived, I was quite taken aback by the contortions of language taken to avoid masculine terminology. So, when the ESV was published in 2001, as an alternative to the NRSV, that became my English version preference for a while (before I had any online sources or options).

Since health problems keep me from attending public meetings, and all my Bible work is now done using Accordance modules or online sources, I just eclectically pick and choose from a smorgasbord of versions, the choice depending on how accurately a version renders a given verse.

I certainly reject the TNIV version of John 3:27!

[Scrawly]

No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

Thanks, and yeah the translation team is what appeals to me as well with the NIV. I really do like the NASB but I am questioning if the more literal a translation = the better a translation. D.A Carson disputes that principle in his book the King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979):

"In a recent article Iain Murray, editor of The Banner of Truth, defended the King James Version (KJV) against the New International Version (NIV) largely on the ground that the former attempted a more literal translation, and this he alleged, was more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration. It is a fair assessment, I think, that says the KJV is more literal than the NIV, although, as I have indicated, I doubt very much if that should always be taken as a compliment. But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know. For example, if I may refer again to an illustration I have just used, to translate "Haben Sie niches gefunden?" by "Have you nothing found?" would scarcely be more honoring to the German author than "Haven't you found anything?," even though the latter translation is certainly less literal than the former. The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and idioms. Ultimately what we want is a translation that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation. Even if one objects to Eugene A. Nida's famous expression "dynamic equivalent," because it can lead to all sorts of freedoms with respect to translation, it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent."

So I'm curious, if you could only have one Bible, which version would you choose and why (between either the ESV, NASB, or NIV)?

[One Bad Pig]

I prefer the NKJV, though I wish the editors had gone with the Majority Text rather than the TR. I also like the NET, though I tend to prefer the alternate translations in the footnotes (which tend to be more formally equivalent).

[John Reece]

John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

Hey, in an earlier reply above, I made the mistake of taking your word for what you have asserted to be the TNIV text of John 3:27.

Here is the TNIV text of John 3:27 in Accordance: To this John replied,

“A person can receive only what is given from heaven.

No bastardization of the English language there.

Unfortunately, the text as you have it is in the NIV currently published by Biblica, which is not the same as the TNIV, which apparently has been discontinued and is out of print (only used copies are for sale at Amazon.com).

[Obsidian]

I thought TNIV meant the 2011 NIV. My bad.

[John Reece]

I thought TNIV meant the 2011 NIV. My bad.

Not your fault; that's what I had read online sometime ago. According to an earlier post, RBerman had the same information as you and I did.

However, TNIV is definitely out of print, and the new/current NIV has both a different translation team and a different text.

[John Reece]

Thanks, and yeah the translation team is what appeals to me as well with the NIV. I really do like the NASB but I am questioning if the more literal a translation = the better a translation. D.A Carson disputes that principle in his book the King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979):

"In a recent article Iain Murray, editor of The Banner of Truth, defended the King James Version (KJV) against the New International Version (NIV) largely on the ground that the former attempted a more literal translation, and this he alleged, was more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration. It is a fair assessment, I think, that says the KJV is more literal than the NIV, although, as I have indicated, I doubt very much if that should always be taken as a compliment. But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know. For example, if I may refer again to an illustration I have just used, to translate "Haben Sie niches gefunden?" by "Have you nothing found?" would scarcely be more honoring to the German author than "Haven't you found anything?," even though the latter translation is certainly less literal than the former. The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and idioms. Ultimately what we want is a translation that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation. Even if one objects to Eugene A. Nida's famous expression "dynamic equivalent," because it can lead to all sorts of freedoms with respect to translation, it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent."

So I'm curious, if you could only have one Bible, which version would you choose and why (between either the ESV, NASB, or NIV)?

Hi, Scrawly.

I deleted my first response last night, because while writing it I discovered that the TNIV is not in fact the same as the new 2011 NIV ― in fact, it does not appear to be even considered in line with the the progression from the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV, but rather is considered as a different translation off to itself.

Also, Obsidian's quote of the NIV11 rendering of John 2:27 (“A person can receive only what is given them from heaven") offended my sensibility with regard to good English usage. So I needed some time to sleep and reconsider my reply.

I just now discovered an article (here) that explains the rationale for the NIV11 rendering of John 3:27. Surprisingly and supposedly, it was determined not by feministic political correctness seeking to avoid the use of a masculine term, but rather was determined by modern English usage (!). Here is the rationale, based on the Collins study of contemporary English:

3. "Singular 'they,' 'them' and 'their' forms were widely used to communicate the generic significance of pronouns and their equivalents when a singular form had already been used for the antecedent" (p. 6).

It is important to notice that guideline #3 explicitly refers to using "they," "them," and "their" as singular. This does not mean that these words are always singular, but that they can be used as either singular or plural depending on the context. This reflects how the English language has changed, and the Collins Report provides the evidence. Though it makes many English teachers cringe, for better or worse, English usage no longer restricts these forms to plural reference. Contemporary English commonly uses expressions like the following: "If anybody had a right to be proud of their accomplishments, it was Paul."

What to me and to Obsidian is a plural "them" in John 3:27, is, according to the NIV11 editors following the Collins study, a singular term.

To my mind, this amounts to capitulating to the lowest common denominator of modern English usage as well as to the feminist abhorrence of masculine terminology. The Bible should, as in the olden days, be a determining force having an uplifting influence on cultural expression, rather than being dumbed down to conform to current cultural expressions. Or so it seems to this octogenarian .

The NASB is a good translation, but not as readable as the ESV. My friend who asked me to recommend a Bible for giving as a gift said he was sticking with his old NASB as his personal Bible only because of the decades of hand written notes in it that he did not wish to give up, along with years of "blood, sweat, and tears." Even with his personal experience with and affinity for his NASB, it's tells one something that he specified that he wanted a recommendation of a "readable" version to give to others.

So, of the options you specify, I guess I would pick the ESV, which incorporates all of the best and most up to date textual scholarship without the worst of the gender neutral masculine aversive agenda that has gotten the best of a significant portion of the Bible publishing industry ― perhaps as much unconsciously as consciously.

Are you interested in learning to read the Greek NT? If so, consider supplementing the ESV Bible with the ESV Greek-English New Testament: Nestle-Aland 28th Edition and English Standard Version.

[Obsidian]

I think the KJV is like a better version of the NASB. Why does no one like it? It doesn't have any of the flaws discussed in this thread. It doesn't have any feminism. It doesn't change the word "seed" to "descendants" in Genesis 17:7. It doesn't say that whoever "disobeys" Jesus will burn in hell in John 3:36. It doesn't support the concept of a monastic "pledge" in 1 Timothy 5:12. And I think it is less clunky and prettier than the NASB. Whenever you quote from it, people generally respect it. It barely costs anything to buy one. You know that it will probably be around for a while (unlike my last Bible, the 1984 NIV). People dislike the "thee" and "thou" parts, but at least you can use those words to tell when the Greek word is singular rather than plural.

I do tend to agree with Bad Pig that the Majority Text would be better, but whatever.

[Littlejoe]

I think the KJV is like a better version of the NASB. Why does no one like it? It doesn't have any of the flaws discussed in this thread. It doesn't have any feminism. It doesn't change the word "seed" to "descendants" in Genesis 17:7. It doesn't say that whoever "disobeys" Jesus will burn in hell in John 3:36. It doesn't support the concept of a monastic "pledge" in 1 Timothy 5:12. And I think it is less clunky and prettier than the NASB. Whenever you quote from it, people generally respect it. It barely costs anything to buy one. You know that it will probably be around for a while (unlike my last Bible, the 1984 NIV). People dislike the "thee" and "thou" parts, but at least you can use those words to tell when the Greek word is singular rather than plural.

I do tend to agree with Bad Pig that the Majority Text would be better, but whatever.

I grew up on the KJV, the language is almost poetic and is beautiful. I still to this day quote scriptures I memorized from it. But, the language is also very outdated. The meaning of so many words have changed so that if you are not VERY careful, you see KJV scripture saying things that are not true. Let's take just one example:

1 Peter 2:9][/B]
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

What does "Peculiar" mean in todays language? Just about everyone would say it means queer, strange or odd. But in the English of the time, Peculiar meant: Distinct, called, or specially appointed, exclusively a part of (a group). There are so many instances of the language drift problem in the KJV, that IMHO, it's at least a problem.