Several posts back I announced my decision to replace the TNIV as my primary Bible for the New Year. Well, that time for my announcement has come: I’m not going to commit to one just yet.
Here’s why:
1. I still like the TNIV but not in Paul’s Letters (so I’ve sided with N.T. Wright in his criticism of both the NIV and TNIV in Paul).
2. While I like the NRSV, some of its gender choices are not at home with me (Gal. 4:1-7). Besides, it needs some updating in light of current English usage.
3. The HCSB has a lot of potential but remains too unstable for me in Paul’s Letters. It seems like it struggles with sperma and kata sarka: a. Romans 9: 7: “Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants [sperma]. On the contrary, in Isaac your seed [sperma] will be called. 8 That is, it is not the children by physical descent [kata sarka] who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered seed [sperma].” (HCSB). Take your pick!
Regarding kata sarka: Romans 1:4 and 9:3, 5, 8: “according to the flesh” and then “by physical descent.” Take your pick!
4. Believe it or not, but I’ve found the ESV to be the most stable in Paul’s Letters, so far. Of course I’ve expressed my disappointment with its slighting of NT scholarship in its refusal to acknowledge possible renderings at Romans 3:21-26.
5. I do like the NET, but someone needs to invest some serious money in its marketing and publishing of better Bibles, or it will be confined to the NET.
But, then, I get to look at the updated HCSB in June 2010. And soon after, we will all get to taste the full NT in the Common English Bible (CEB) this Fall (2010), followed by the complete Bible in 2011.
So why should I commit now?
Afraid of commitment, huh?
Can’t wait to have this discussion again post-HCSB2.
I bounced around for Years before concluding that all English Translations are jus that, a Translation. Being so, none will Ever be 100% as we would wish. That said, I chose the HCSB as it satisfies 80%-90% of what I Need.. The wide Margins are where the 10% -20%, from a variety of other sources, get to have their say.. So, yes, I’m most comfy with my HCSB and my thoughts n scribbles in the margins… Imho…
Will,
I can’t commit just yet.
HD,
It will eventually come down to a translation that satisfies 80-90% of what I need.
I understand your approach T.C.
Many of us who are open-minded about translations don’t just have one translation, but compare several. I believe we should have a main translation and have access to others to fill the gaps. My main translation is the NKJV, but I’m also using the ESV.
T.C., it seems like the only problem you have with the TNIV is the “flesh” issue. Maybe you should stay with the TNIV as your main text. At least you are aware of that issue and can adjust it in your mind and also make notes in your margins. That’s what I have decided to do during the year 2010. I’m making notes in the margins of my Bibles.
Rod,
Yes, “flesh” is the main issue but not the only. As I said, I do like it outside of Paul.
Considering Paul’s letters are such a hotbed of scholarly debate it doesn’t seem to be a good idea to base a translation choice mostly on how it lines up with particular current trends in Pauline studies, especially when tomorrow the consensus may head in a different direction or even back towards the traditional renderings of certain words. Just a thought.
My quick method in choosing the right translation to present for the nourishment of the souls in the flock is … When you say aloud a passage that sums up the message of His sacrifice and gift, can you hear a murmur in the pew that sound like… ” My Lord and My God!”?
If so, then no matter what technical hesitation you may feel, you will be giving the Word to those in need (everyone).
What better translation could there be than one that causes the deaf to hear and the blind to see?
TNIV is very good. HCSB is clear. Sinful nature? We put oil on that sea. Feel the response to the Word, not the analysis (bad response is bad translation… next contestant please!).
Bryan L,
Precisely why I struggle with “sinful nature” because it’s too narrow an approach.
Tom,
Sober indeed. We’ll see.
TC, I am going to stick with the TNIV until the HCSB 2nd is released. I do have a digital copy, but that was a beta release and I know that they have done more changes. I won’t transition to another bible until the NIV 2011 is released and then I will make my comparisons. I like hard copies of bibles and the investment is to costly to purchase them. I have liked the HCSB, and that will remain as one of my favorites and will continue to be in my top two bibles of choice.
I will purchase a 2nd edition of the HCSB as soon as it is available, and from what I understand it should be the ministers bible which is a single column black letter edition, can’t wait!
Robert,
As you know, I do like the HCSB, but I think it needs to be a bit more stable in Paul. Perhaps the 2nd. has done some of that. But yes, 2011 is going to be excited for those of us interested in English Bibles.
I understand the dilemma very much. I have bounced to and from the TNIV over and over again. I, however, keep returning. I do correct its rendering some, but find I do it less in the TNIV than I do in the HCSB (and others) – although I do like that translation.
I really wish someone would just use the word “seed” instead of “descendants” or “offspring.” Those two leave a lot to be desired when one is encouraging their students to tie the understanding of Galatians with Genesis — just one of my problems with all the updated translations. Oh well.
Iris,
I tend to look for certain concordance in an English Bible. For example, “seed” or “descendants” between the OT and NT. It’s there. The theological import is there. Why English translations, outside of the ESV, keep messing with it, I don’t know.
I’m sure we know how blessed we are to have choices of translations into our own language. Choosing one can be challenging. However, marketing, promotion and advertising can make the difference.
That’s one reason I like the ESV. Two or three years ago I didn’t consider it, but after a few years of researching the translation issue, it is actually a good translation. The text font has a dignified style but is modern. I’m also attacted to it because it comes in a variety of styles, colors, sizes, etc. It’s website is user friendly and has many features such as audio of the text. A free software download is availble with each Bible purchase.
Are these reasons too “vain” or “shallow” to like a translation?!
While I read passages in several translations for study, I mainly read and memorize in one version. I have not found a perfect English translation because one doesn’t exist, so I have used the TNIV. It is so close to the NIV that I can follow along in church (we use the NIV) and the NIV seems to be used by the majority of believers I know. Also, I usually recommend a median translation for most people as an every day bible rather than one either too literal or too free. Overall, the TNIV fits the bill right now until the NIV update comes put.
Rod,
Crossway must be commended at some levels for their marketing of the ESV. It still has it problems with awkward reading here and there and some of its gender decision, being overly complementarian.
John,
I still recommended the TNIV. It’s a fine translation, esp. if you’re comfortable with the NIV and familiar with it.
T.C.,
Gotcha, I understand.
I’ve been using the same NKJV for about 22 years now, the leather is worn through in places and it so marked up my aging eye are having trouble reading through it all. It’s hard to give up because I can find a verse that I’m not sure of the exact address by knowing which column and about how far down it is. I received a gift certificate to half priced books and found a new still wrapped in plastic hardback ESV for about $15. I’ll read it at home, but if I’m going somewhere where swordplay is required I’ll still be carrying around the old reliable.
Duane,
The best translation for a person is the one that they’re comfortable with.
I think the ESV is close enough to NKJV that I’ll mostly notice the differences without getting upset at radical changes.
GOD bless you Duane! Your approach for 22 years is an inspiration to me. You have faithful by choosing a translation, reading it and making notes in the text. This is what I will start doing in the New Year 2010.
I have been unwilling to make notes in my Bible because I guess I like for it to look nice and neat.
As John mentioned, no perfect exists. T.C. has always said, to choose the translation that speaks to you. My problem is that in some way, each English Christian Translation speaks to me. At least I’ve choosen the NKJV as #1 and the ESV as #2. Others will serve as reference translations for now.
Duane,
For those who are familiar with the KJV and NKJV, switching to the ESV seems almost natural.
Rod,
Outside the NKJV and ESV, you should go for something like the NLT.
I agree T.C., being familiar with the NKJV makes the ESV sort of attractive. You are right, for a different translation approach, going outside this family of translations is necessary. I do use the NLT for reference.
Oh yeah, T.C., I want you to know that I appreciate this blog site, you, and the other bloggers. I can tell you are dedicated to making this site excellent. I’ve learned so much.
Hey TC- I don’t follow your comment RE the NET. What’s the drawback there? A couple scholars that I know say it’s the best thing since the Septuagint. Any other drawbacks to ESV? Thanks in advance.
Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
Rod,
We learn from each other around here.
Mailman,
Regarding the NET, their published editions are not too good – at least from what I’ve seen. I have objections to some rendering here and there, esp. in the OT. But generally, it’s rather good.
Regarding the ESV, I still hold that it should have done more in terms of a revision. Didn’t do enough for me. It’s too reactionary at certain turns, esp. in Paul. Neither do I like its complementarian assumptions, which is reflected in so many of its renderings, e.g 2 Tim. 2:2.
But it can be good in some places.
T.C., by complementarian are you meaning the roles of males vs. females in the church, for example? I do understand your concern about that. It’s no doubt that translations like the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. are very “conservative” concerning gender.
My questions about 2 Tim. 2:2 and other verses that have gender references is what is the context and what does the original language say. I’m more concerned with context and being gender accurate rather than gender neutral or gender exclusive. By the way, the ESV 2007 edition does have a footnote of “deaconess” for “servent” concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1. However, I know this won’t change your mind about the ESV T.C.!
Rod,
Yes, that’s the long standing debate. I’m a complementarian, one who holds to different roles for both males and females. But I don’t want translators to translate texts of Scripture from a complementarian position, which is just that, a position.
Regarding 2 Tim. 2:2, What contextual question do you have in mind? Aren’t women to be trained to teach others?
Good for the ESV 2007.
T.C., you asked, “Regarding 2 Tim. 2:2, What contextual question do you have in mind? Aren’t women to be trained to teach others?”. The contextual questions I have are who is talking in this text, who were they talking to, what were the cultural issues during that time, etc. Also, in the original language, what does it translate into English, “men” or “people”, etc.?
As I mentioned, I prefer that translations are gender accurate from the original text.
Oh yeah, T.C., I know you are aware that the translation issue is kind of “circular” and probably will never end. It does seem like even the NKJV does not have footnotes to suggest alternatives to “servent” in Romans 16:1 concerning the role of Phoebe. Will I guess in many ways the NKJV is still a KJV of sorts!
My focus for the year 2010 will be on understanding the verses. Is there any chance you will have a discussion on 1 Peter 2:2 whether it should be grow in salvation, or grow up to be saved, or mature in your salvation, or grow into salvation, etc. (depending on the translation)?
Rod,
Regarding 2 Tim. 2:2, your questions are legitimate. But a generic rendering of “people” as in the TNIV, NRSV would be the better approach.
Well, I don’t use either the KJV or the NKJV, so I don’t know too much of what you’re referring to.
Regarding 1 Peter 2:2, perhaps I’ll discuss it at some point.
Have you thought about moving back to the NASB?
T.C., in the KJV and NKJV and probably other traditional translations, in Romans 16:1 Phoebe is called a servant. But in some translations like the NIV, TNIV, NLT, and even the ESV, either in the text or footnotes is a reference to her being a deaconess. The KJV and NKJV gives no reference alternative that she could have been a deaconess.
Nothingman,
The NASB has good qualities, but overall I don’t think I’ll ever go back to it.
Rod,
In our English Bibles, we translate one Greek word, diakonos, either as “minister,” “servant,” “deacon,” and “deaconess.” It’s one word. It’s up to the translators to decide.
WOW, thanks T.C. The words in the Hebrew and Greek Languages are very rich and full of meaning!
I’ve seen this suggestion several times and I’m starting to believe it’s a good idea – Let’s all learn Hebrew and Greek and be done with it!
Rod,
Not a bad idea but takes a lot of work and time and discipline.
Gotcha. Thanks T.C.
There’s still room for you in the NASB camp, TC.
Peter M,
Thanks, but no thanks. I ain’t going back there.
Just curious – why?
E.K.
It needs a lot of work, starting with smoothing out and ridding itself of those italics. Just a start.
TC, I’ve just started my daily readings with the ESV. I had been a TNIV user, but like you, I need a “fleshy” bible. Just accepting that the ESV has limitations (e.g. some archaisms) has helped me relax and just enjoy it. I’ve realised too that a literal translation caters to my obssessive desire for concordance. So it looks like I’m an ESV guy.
Nick M,
Choosing a translation could be so stressfull, but it’s what the reader enjoys and is comfortable with. Well, I’m glad that you find the ESV useful.
My first Bible purchase after becoming a Christian in the early 80′s was The Amplified Bible. With my very limited knowledge, it seemed to be the best choice at the time and I enjoyed it for several years. I’d like to see a newer translation Amplified – if you could choose a translation to “amplify” which one would it be?
EK,
I understand that some people like the Amplified version approach, but it really doesn’t work for me – so I could choose a translation to amplify.
T.C.,
I take it you’d prefer translations with footnotes for novices? Would that be for flow?
EK,
Well, yes, when it comes to flow, notes seem to work best. But since I don’t know of another translation like the Amplified, I guess you’re stuck with it.
T.C.,
I suppose so…maybe I’ll give my NET another good try – and, hey, if I lug to services and studies, that heavy thing will tone my arms at the same time.
E.K.,
So you get both out of the NET: for the mind and for the muscles.