@edodt4220

4 months ago

Seems to me that the primary benefit of having many translation options is they can serve a variety of purposes. In my mind, the NIV (any year) has lost its place in this regard. The CSB does what the NIV initially tried to do, and ended up doing it better. I think the CSB has truly accomplished nearly everything translations of its kind have tried to do.

The CSB has really moved the area of concern to how to manage poetry in a translation of it's kind. And not sure they quite got there with it.

If I want something a bit more "free" or dynamic I'm reaching for the NLT. If I'm looking carefully at some different tendious aspects of a specific passage, I'm going for the CSB/NET/NLT with my LSB and Greek NT open. The NIV has became redundant when it "fell behind" other translations that emphasized more worthy aims; it intentionally tangled itself in issues that don't REALLY have relevance when it comes to concerns related to the actual text. The whole "gender neutral/inclusive" controversy is really NOT a textual issue, or even a translation issue. It's "culture controversy" rather than serious concerns over the text.


No one here is really foolish enough to be confused when Paul sends greetings to the "brothers."

Further, it's a contrived issue as far as text and translation is concerned. There is literally ZERO difference in how Hebrew, Greek and English uses masculine pronouns. And that is a GIFT. Because there are a number of serious issues to face when it comes to translation. We don't need to MAKE UP problems, and reflect our made-up problem in a translation philosophy that will make awkward appearances in the text itself.

The older I get, the more I take people's "word for it" when it comes to what they are doing and what they care about. When the NRSV started down the road of dealing with gendered language, the liberals all claimed that none of the fears expressed by conservatives had any warrant. Well, thirty years later we see the outcome of that in the NRSVUE.

Now Dr. Carson and Dr. Moo are not theological liberals, but Dr. Metzger wasn't a bad guy, either. Bad ideas often originate with good men who have good intentions. As much as we should all be grateful for the work that comes out of the evangelical academy, it behooves us all to keep our own eyes clear. There is a pretty high degree of pretentiousness that comes along with these so-called "issues" behind this "controversy." There's still a lot of "old" issues that I don't think have been fully worked out: the best ways to communicate the challenges presented by Greek verbs, the best way to present poetry, more precise ways to communicate imagery and many other literary features that are often obscured by the need for translation. These would be areas where I would hope our faithful scholars would spend their energies, and make much of issues ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE TEXT, rather than acquiecing to the fact that the unbeleiving world has become utterly confused over what's behind their zipper.

I still use the NIV2011 because it's a popular translation and we have to know what people are reading. But I think they dropped the ball 25 years ago and it can take a long time for that to reflect in bookstore receipts.

I do realize that a lot of these translations have many of the same guys on board doing the work. But each translation has a philosophy, decision-making process, series of policies, and goals. The translators work within a large set of parameters. It seems clear to me that the NIV lost it's way a long time ago, and other translations like the NAS, ESV, CSV, NET, and even the NLT, are all superior because they have the RIGHT GOALS and they accomplish them well. And that has squeezed the NIV out of relevance in my mind......people are using it because they "always have" but TIME is all that is needed to show that won't be enough to stay at the top forever.

7 |