ESV & Logos
Comments
-
Russ Quinn said:Rosie Perera said:
one of my professors, J.I. Packer
What a privilege to have the opportunity to study with Dr. Packer!
I would have to rank his Knowing God as one of the most important books for my theological formation written by a living author.
Ditto for me. Dr. Packer is a real gem! In all the debates where Christians take sides, he is a mediating and reconciling voice. Even when he disagrees strongly with a fellow believer on a particular theological issue, he is such a humble man and a gentle spirit that he does what few others of his stature could do and lends his support to the person in love. He is one of the few great Christian leaders of the 20th (and 21st) century who have been able to penetrate walls of division and bring healing between warring parties. He is still teaching at Regent College at 83! What a guy. I don't agree with him on all his theological viewpoints, but I certainly respect him and his integrity in how he holds them and communicates them to others.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Ditto for me. Dr. Packer is a real gem! In all the debates where Christians take sides, he is a mediating and reconciling voice. Even when he disagrees strongly with a fellow believer on a particular theological issue, he is such a humble man and a gentle spirit that he does what few others of his stature could do and lends his support to the person in love. He is one of the few great Christian leaders of the 20th (and 21st) century who have been able to penetrate walls of division and bring healing between warring parties.
Packer fans may find interesting that his reputation is recognized in the secular world. See Time Magazine blurb http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/21.html
Regards,
Scott
From Wisconsin, a Packer fan
0 -
Ted Hans said:
I am with Grudem on this one.
Hmmm...I'll stick with Strauss.
And we'll have to all get along, regardless [:)]
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Hmmm...I'll stick with Strauss.
And we'll have to all get along, regardless
Really? You think his criticisms of the ESV in the aforementioned article are helpful?
0 -
Well, really, I have no desire to get involved in a battle of translations. The TNIV is really a dead issue at this point. We'll have to wait for the NIV 2011 to advance any of this debate further. And although I would actually hope for no debate at all, I fear none of this is over yet.
Although I have a number of significant problems with the ESV (and I've mentioned some in the past on my blog) at the same time, I've tried to be generous because I know that it is a primary vehicle for God's voice for many people, including many people whom I greatly respect.
I had access to Mark's article before he presented it at ETS last year, and I was in the audience when he presented it as well. I was also in the audience when Mounce offered his rejoinder last month. Although Mounce offered brotherly criticism of both Grudem and Strauss, I feel that he ultimately gave Grudem a free pass considering Grudem wrote an entire book against the TNIV that has some of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever read against a translation of the Bible, including criticisms that create a double standard when compared with the ESV.
So, were Strauss' criticisms helpful? I think he brought a number of issues to light that needed attention. But if it caused offense, I can't see how it even begins to compare to Grudem's entire book against the TNIV.
For what it's worth, I've been teaching from the HCSB again over the last few months. It, like the TNIV, is a good median translation. Those are the kinds of translations I like to use publicly. I wish the HCSB was a bit more gender accurate in some places, but I've found I can reasonably correct it on the fly.
0 -
MarkStevens said:
still cant remove it in the exegetical guide
Okay, back to my original post. When I have NA27 prioritised above NRSV or ESV for that matter it uses NA27 as the Greek text in the EG however, it automatically has the ESV as the english translation even when it is prioritised lower.
What I did discover is that the NRSV rev int. in the EG is not the same as the old rev int. It follows the NA27, therefore the problem is pretty much solved...
For the rest of you who are now embroiled in a translation war, I am truly sorry. [H]
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Well, really, I have no desire to get involved in a battle of translations.
No desire for battle or translation war here.
Actually my surprise at your endorsement of Strauss is that I have found your comments in the past in this debate to be more measured and helpful than his.
I'm sure he is a great guy. I don't know him and I haven't followed the back and forth as close as you. My experience in the debate has really been limited to the specific issue of the translation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2. And that was a number of years ago. But what I have noticed is that the intensity of the debate has caused normally careful scholars on both sides like Bloomberg, Carson, and Grudem to be occasionally sloppy in their critiques and defense of their various positions.
Of course, as my own comments have demonstrated in this thread, we are all susceptible to overstatement at times in these matters. As a result I would have a difficult time choosing sides regarding either a particular translation or a particular scholar who has contributed to the discussion.
0 -
Mark is a great guy. I was able to spend about 30 minutes or so privately talking with him at SBL last month, and we've corresponded via email a number of times in the past two or three years. Perspective colors everything, but I still feel he's been FAR more measured in the debate than some of the opposing rhetoric I've seen; but others may disagree, of course.
You mentioned Psalm 8/Hebrews 2. Way back in 2006 when I first reviewed the TNIV on my blog, I was critical of a similar passage: Psalm 34:20/John 19:36. While I understand what the translators were trying to do, I'm conservative enough to feel that the texts traditionally associated with messianic prophecies should be left alone. I took a lot of flack about that from other TNIV supporters over this, but I still stand by that conviction. But that conviction wasn't enough to make me reject the TNIV. The positive in the translation far outweighed the negative to me.
And as I mentioned in an early comment above in regard to the HCSB, I reserve the right to "correct" on the fly when necessary. If I've spent enough time in the original languages in regard to a passage, I feel I've earned the right to do this.
Although I have no inside track on the NIV 2011 (even Mark told me that he couldn't yet say at this point what the final product would look like), I did predict that many of these kinds of texts with Messianic references will end up looking more like the NIV than the TNIV (see the end of point #2 on my prediction post).
I would hope that the ESV-TNIV war will now die down and even go away, but I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, Bill Mounce is an interesting addition to the NIV Committee on Bible Translation. Having been the NT chair for the ESV committee, he has the opportunity to be a bridge (hopefully) between the two "camps."
Mounce was one of the original signers of the "Statement of Concern" against the TNIV, but many may not realize that he later had his name removed from it. At ETS, he commented that he had given copies of the TNIV to children at his church during Vacation Bible School. While I think the TNIV can (could have been?) used by far more than children, this use was certainly a far cry from his original "concern" about the translation.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
No desire for battle or translation war here.
Actually my surprise at your endorsement of Strauss is that I have found your comments in the past in this debate to be more measured and helpful than his.
For a couple of guys who have no desire to get into a battle of translations you have certainly filled up the thread! [;)]
0 -
Ah, but we've done so in a civil manner without any nasty rhetoric or ad hominem attacks. [:)]
0 -
Very true! [:D] Unfortunately not all posters on this thread can say that....
Oh, and we just hit 100 comments! That is a personal best!!!
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Ah, but we've done so in a civil manner without any nasty rhetoric or ad hominem attacks.
Next you will be claiming that all Christians who disagree should act in a similar manner. [:O]
0 -
I was a die hard NASB fan because I wanted a "word for word" translation bible instead of a phrase translation or "thought for thought" translation. When I did a google search on the ESV, I learned that the translation team started with the RSV as a spring board for the ESV but the main object was to go back to the latest discoveries of the oldest greek and hebrew transcripts to make a more accurate translation of God's Word. Of course, the ESV is not totally accurate...but none of the translations are totally accurate. I personally love the ESB, but having that reverse interlinear is the best part to me, being able to see the greek or the hebrew word used and also being able to read every where that one greek/hebrew word is used throughout the Word.
I'm not learned enough on L4 yet to set a different bible as a default bible in the exegetical guide. I pray someone can show you how to set your favorite bible as the default real soon.
0 -
MarkStevens said:Russ Quinn said:
No desire for battle or translation war here.
Actually my surprise at your endorsement of Strauss is that I have found your comments in the past in this debate to be more measured and helpful than his.
For a couple of guys who have no desire to get into a battle of translations you have certainly filled up the thread!
Full Disclosure: Rick and I are personal friends outside of the Logos forum.
We participated in doctoral seminars together. Please pray for both of us as we are both in the final throes of finishing dissertations.
I also follow his blog because I know him to be a fair minded, knowledgeable contributor to a variety of discussions that interest me.
We agree on much more than we disagree.
As for me, I have tried to emphasize that my interests are not in promoting or defending any particular translation.
I was simply attempting to answer Mark's question about why Logos seems to prefer the ESV. My links to Grudem were not meant to necessarily be an endorsement. I offered those in response to what I thought was Mark's request for a critical analysis of the exegetical issues related to the TNIV.
I honestly don't see the value in promoting a favorite translation. I see them all as different tools that are available for different purposes.
I recommend different translations to different people in different situations.
Personally I regularly preach from the NIV, NASB, ESV and even the NLT.
I find that there are occasions that I need to clarify something in every translation.
For my devotional reading, I try to use a different translation each year as my One Year Bible.
I have found that reading different translations drives me back to the text with new questions.I do see some advantages of using the ESV as your preferred reverse interlinear in L4.
That is not to denigrate the NRSV or TNIV in any way. It is just to note that it is a different tool that fits the design goals of L4.
I am glad, though, that Logos is committed to producing reverse interlinears in other translations.I would encourage every responsible teacher of the Word to be as familiar as possible with all of the translations and the reasons they make the exegetical decisions they do.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
I was simply attempting to answer Mark's question about why Logos seems to prefer the ESV.
Yep that's me! Thanks, your comments were helpful.
Russ Quinn said:My links to Grudem were not meant to necessarily be an endorsement. I offered those in response to what I thought was Mark's request for a critical analysis of the exegetical issues related to the TNIV.
I have enjoyed both you comments and the nature in which you posted. Better than some responses that is for sure.
Russ Quinn said:I honestly don't see the value in promoting a favorite translation. I see them all as different tools that are available for different purposes.
I recommend different translations to different people in different situations.
YES, YES, YES! I could not agree more! Thanks. [:D]
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
I recommend different translations to different people in different situations.
I agree thoroughly. I usually state that people should have three translations:
- one that is used in church services - this is a translation that is easily understood aurally
- one that is used in formal scriptural studies - this is a translation that is accurate even at the cost of ease of understanding
- one used for devotional reading - one that you prefer for reading regardless of what others think of it.
I actually can't narrow it down that far but: for church NAB/CEV which I will not defend; for studies, NRSV and JPS, for devotions, JBS and Community Bible. But then again, it's awfully hard to leave out NETS Septuagint, Orthodox Study Bible. If I were in England or Canada I could simplify my list.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
-
Mike Aubrey said:
Shoot, I missed this one and its all over now!
OK, then let me stoke the "conspiracy theory" fires just a little more: How come, in Logos 3, when I type in "bible" in the toolbar "Go:" box and hit Enter, up pops the NIV? [:D]Fred
0 -
We might all be better served if you just started a new thread instead of resurrecting this one.
0 -
Because the ESV is so superior to all others. Also, you may have made the NIV your "preferred" Bible. Maybe now the fires will be rekindled and you can join in all the fun with this one again.
0 -
Okay, so I looked at your list and thought...what would be my 123.
I enjoy so many of the current English versions that I do a lot of jumping around, but I do find that I pick some more than others.
1. For church service - NIV, second choice HCSB
2. For Deep Bible Study - NASB, second choice ESV
3. For Devotional reading - NLT
4. For Apocrypha reading - NRSV
5. For Giving Away - NIV and ESV
0
