Why is the ESV the default translation for Logos (the company)?
The ESV seems to be everywhere on the Logos site, including reftagger, many (most?) training videos, etc. If you do some casual research you will come to the same conclusion as me.
However, the ESV is neither the top grossing translation or the top selling translation. It never has been the most widely used translation by Christians in general. As of June, the ESV is still stuck at number 4 and five for unit sales and dollar sales. (Ref: http://cbanews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/BiblesTranslations201406.pdf)
Logos does not claim to take sides with any denomination, but markets to all kinds of Christians. Here are some points I would like to make:
1. They are a business, and they should be more neutral in regards to the issue of Bible translations. They should choose a default translation based on what is most commonly purchased/used by Christians.
2. In addition, they should choose a default version that was translated by a team from all different theological perspectives, not only, for example, the Reformed perspective. (I am not saying anything against the Reformed perspective, that is not my concern here). If one examines the translation and review team of the ESV, one can see clearly that nearly all of the involved come from Reformed institutions or ones closely associated with the Reformed perspective.
3. Many contemporary and scholarly commentaries are based on the NIV, for better or for worse. Very few that I know of are based on the ESV.
Overall, my opinion is that Logos should market to the whole church. Choosing the ESV as the default translation for the Logos website and training, etc., gives the wrong impression. (That they are promoting the Reformed faith). I am not saying that the impression is right.
All translations have weaknesses, including the NIV and the ESV. Why not make the NIV the default translation of Logos, then, starting with Logos 6?
As the market widens, just go with the numbers.
NOTE CAREFULLY: This post is NOT about doctrine or theology. It's about Logos not giving a false impression, and going with the common sense reality that the ESV is not the Bible that most Christians use.
So please do not start a theological discussion.
NOTE ALSO: I am neutral when it comes to what translation is best. They all have good and bad points. I can and will use all of them.
Since that is true, in general I use the NIV for most things, due to the points mentioned above.
Comments
-
Some could argue that the NIV is not any more neutral than the ESV.
It does not matter which Bible is default. Just change it if you don't like it.
0 -
Note that whether the NIV is neutral or not is not my point at all.
There are no neutral translations. Not a single one. And I am not referring to the Logos desktop software. Rather I am referring to the website and training videos, resources that come out in ESV editions, etc.
My point was that the NIV is more widely used by far than the ESV, whereas the ESV is mainly promoted by the New Calvinists, the NIV is used by Calvinists, Arminians, "Calminians", Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., etc.
It seems that since Logos chose to use the ESV for everything, they stand on the side of the New Calvinists. Very few of other perspectives use the ESV regularly. I am concerned because the non-Reformed are being marginalized because if they want to buy resources that use the ESV as the default translation, they will under most circumstances be Reformed, neo-Reformed or the like. The same is not the case for the NIV. Take for example Don Carson, who uses the NIV in his materials. On the other hand we have Gordon D. Fee and those in his perspective, which both use the NIV.
I think the ESV can be perceived as more sectarian. Whether one sect is right or not is not my concern here. My concern is that as a business, Logos should not promote one sect over the other.
If one looks at the facts of the ESV, it's hard to deny my impression.
0 -
-
I'd argue that the default Bible should be the one heard by the largest number of English-speakers in their Sunday/Sabbath service as that should be the one that most preachers are preparing. I suspect that narrows the field to NRSV (NAB or JB) although I haven't calculated it out. Not that I would seriously suggest that be the default - merely pointing out that there is no single statistic that stands out as the defining value.
As it is simple to change to the default of your choice, I can't get too concerned about the default.
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 -
I haven't thought about a default translation as being an issue, but since we are here, there will clearly be no winners on this. If by chance Logos does change the default translation, someone will have an issue with the new one. I really don't see this as making a difference one way or another since Logos is not a church, denomination, or other similar group.
0 -
Thanks for the links! Actually, I understand their perspective. However, now the NIV interlinear has been finished.
Sorry if my post sounds argumentative. Maybe it is, in some respect. But the fact remains that the ESV is a minority translation by quite a margin, and it has been used mainly by the Reformed in their literature in the past 10 years or so. I don't buy the argument that the reason the ESV was used was due to licensing agreements or especially the contention that the ESV is more "literal." Though I am not an expert in Greek or Hebrew, I know enough to follow the arguments between the scholars who blog about this issue.
I'd bet that there were a majority of Reformed types on the committee which decided to make the ESV the standard for the training videos, etc. If not, at least they weren't fully aware of the theological package which goes along with the ESV (is that possible?).
I just think it is high time for Logos to diversify. Target the majority, not only the minority. But give the minority options, of course.
0 -
I remember back when the ESV was first announced in Logos promotions, which was around the same time the book was being released in print...there was this huge fan club of groupies (not just Logos, but in Christianity Today magazine and elsewhere) for this new Bible version that had effectively never even played a concert up to that point. I remember being distinctly surprised and annoyed by the whole affair. The only thing that I can relate it to since then is the coronation of Barack Obama as the heir apparent for the Democratic candidate for president (in 2008) when when he was chosen to give the keynote at the DNC convention in 2004. At the time, he had served approximately one year in Congress. I have read the ESV here and there at different times, and I have never been impressed by it. I'm not saying it's awful...just nothing to write home about.
Comparatively speaking, Obama proved himself as being more legit than the ESV has--he actually IS the president, whether successful or not. But the two do have one thing in common--their quick success was primarily political and premature as opposed to being earned.
Although the NASB occasionally goes with a more loose "thought correspondence" than I think is appropriate (and I almost never think it is appropriate), it nearly always will give the literal reading of the Hebrew or Greek in a marginal note. That, to me, is huge. There are a few readings or an occasional lack of needed notes in NASB that I think are stinkers, but those are very few. The combination of mostly literal translation along with inclusion of literal notes when using so-called "thought translations" makes the NASB my unchallenged first choice go-to Bible.
Btw, trying to understand prophecy using a "thought translation" Bible is about as likely to produce success as trying to cross the ocean in a Revell model airplane. [:S]
[li][ap]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
By the way,
To all my ESV-loving friends:
Absolutely no offense intended! You are my brothers and sisters. And I fully respect you, honestly. So my concern is not against you, but it is for the church as a whole. Thanks for your understanding!
0 -
@ David Paul
Thanks for your reply!
You may be right on translation philosophy. [:)] I don't know.
My contention though is not about that at all. It's about what translation is used by the church at large. I would say that the usage of any minority translation, no matter how "good," is promotion of a certain viewpoint, whether intended or not.
I am going with the assumption that it was not intended. If that is so, then it is time for Logos to switch the default translation for future projects (which haven't yet begun) to the majority translation. This is especially true since other issues have been cleared up.I have no comment on the Verbum web pages or resources. But a hearty greeting to my Verbum friends and brothers, as well!
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
Thanks for the links! Actually, I understand their perspective. However, now the NIV interlinear has been finished.
Sorry if my post sounds argumentative. Maybe it is, in some respect.
I tend to agree with you, so need to be argumentative with me (and I know you didn't intend it as such [:)]). I was just being the messenger to pass on Logos's (outdated) answer to this question from when it was raised before, since there's no guarantee they'll see this present thread and respond to it (they very rarely read and respond to the General forum).
Logos tries to be as neutral as it can, as a business, but sometimes it can't help but show its true colors: its historically conservative evangelical / Reformed roots (the core of their original user base). I'm pretty sure the selection of ESV as one of the first translations (if not the first?) to do an interlinear of was in part due to the fact that they simply preferred that translation. And likely still do. The company has diversified since those early days and has hired a number of people from other traditions, including Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. So if the decision were being made afresh now, they might choose something else. But historic decisions in companies have a way of getting embedded into their DNA, in the very fabric of the way they do business. This one doesn't seem like it's going to be easy to dislodge. They've got dozens of videos already made that use the ESV as the default.
I'm not defending their decision, so no need to push back on this. I'm just expressing my skepticism as to how likely it is that they'll change at this point. But I understand and agree with your frustration. Personally I'm happy changing my preferred Bible to something else and the standard default being ESV doesn't get in my way when watching videos and seeing RefTagger popups. But then again I come from the seminary where J.I. Packer teaches (and he was the theological editor of the ESV), so while it isn't in my top three or four versions, it is in my top 10. Not that I've read it much to know how I really like it. (T)NIV and NRSV remain my two favorites, because I'm most familiar with them. And KJV for historical/literary reasons. And The Message because I know Eugene Peterson too (though it's awkward for most study purposes, and cannot be interlinearized).
If you want them to change it, put it in as a UserVoice suggestion.
0 -
IF Logos would decide to change English Bible version they wouldn't need to change anything but the RefTagger at first. I don't see the point of RefTagger having a fixed default version, why can't it be set to some other version? What I mean is that if I post with RefTagger I would like the system to recognize my preferred version, perhaps even on a book chapter or verse level (no, not the Logos desktop software settings) by identifying who posted:
Rosie Perera said:But historic decisions in companies have a way of getting embedded into their DNA, in the very fabric of the way they do business. This one doesn't seem like it's going to be easy to dislodge. They've got dozens of videos already made that use the ESV as the default.
It's not likely, but that's exactly why a discussion like this here on the forums is vital, so that a few more will become aware that they don't have to use anything others are suggesting.Neither the ESV nor the TNIV or NIV are my favourites, I have no copies of them and have never use them, the only exceptions being a 1984 NIV New Testament (which I've never used) as printed matter, and the 1973 NIV New Testament included in a printed matter 8-translation Parallel New Testament:
Rosie Perera said:I'm not defending their decision, so no need to push back on this. I'm just expressing my skepticism as to how likely it is that they'll change at this point. But I understand and agree with your frustration. Personally I'm happy changing my preferred Bible to something else and the standard default being ESV doesn't get in my way when watching videos and seeing RefTagger popups. But then again I come from the seminary where J.I. Packer teaches (and he was the theological editor of the ESV), so while it isn't in my top three or four versions, it is in my top 10. Not that I've read it much to know how I really like it.
The NRSV would be a good choice as a default version, except that it uses gender-neutral language. Because it has the full Deuterocanonicals, because it is the official version for some Churches (for example the Catholic Church in Canada), and has a suitable language and formal equivalence, and has adequate Reverse Interlinear options (although I would prefer that they start selling at the New Testament and 39-book Old Testament Reverse Interlinears separately (in addition to offering the L4 Minimal Crossgrade)):Rosie Perera said:(T)NIV and NRSV remain my two favorites, because I'm most familiar with them.
Without re-reading the more or less official replies from Logos, none of the best-selling versions would do because of the lack of the Deuterocanonicals or being too freely translated (NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT). I think there are Verbum users who use the "protestant" videos - I don't know how many, Logos has some kind of user statistics:Kendall Sholtess said:My contention though is not about that at all. It's about what translation is used by the church at large. I would say that the usage of any minority translation, no matter how "good," is promotion of a certain viewpoint, whether intended or not.
[...]
I have no comment on the Verbum web pages or resources. But a hearty greeting to my Verbum friends and brothers, as well!Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
Bookstore sales tell part of the story, but I found this article just as interesting.
0 -
I like the KJV, too. I read in it and don't have any objection to it. I realize that there are text critical issues involved, but overall I think that textual critics tend to be overly dogmatic about their principles.
Against Gordon Fee, I don't find the KJV to be difficult to understand at all. Even if there are some difficult words, it's a relatively minor adjustment to learn the older meaning. Perhaps the biggest problem is that, according to the data, young people graduating from high school are now far less literate than people born in my generation (1970s). One wonders if in a few years we won't be down to reading Baby Bibles in church. Or picture book Bibles. [:P]
Ok, those in the younger generation who can use Logos are probably the exception. [:)]
0 -
I don't find the RSV hard to read, nor hard to find out the newest textual variant decisions in the NT:
Kendall Sholtess said:Against Gordon Fee, I don't find the KJV to be difficult to understand at all. Even if there are some difficult words, it's a relatively minor adjustment to learn the older meaning.
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
I travel quite a bit, and I see the ESV being used more and more extensively, especially in Asia where it now has wide acceptance in the Anglican churches. However, I notice that home groups in Asia tend to stick to the NIV.
I do think, however, that the ESV Study Bible is an outstanding resource for the layperson.
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
I don't buy the argument that the reason the ESV was used was due to licensing agreements or especially the contention that the ESV is more "literal."
I don't have a dog in this fight. I am NOT reformed. I like the ESV. I like the NIV. I like other translations and use many. These two points, however, seem pretty hard to dispute.
1. The copyright owners of the ESV are much more generous about its usage than the NIV. Take as one example: They have provide us with the ESV audio FREE OF CHARGE. Another example: The NIV has been removed from base packages per copyright holders request. Additionally, the copyright holders refuse to allow the NIV84 to be sold. Sounds pretty restrictive to me. [;)]
2. It is commonly agreed that the NIV is toward the middle of the "thought for thought" vs. "word for word" continuum. The ESV is considerably further towards the "word for word" side. You can't deny that. Take Galatians 1:2 as an example. The ESV has "brothers," while the NIV has "brothers and sisters." I am not opposed to the NIV translation here at all, but "sisters" isn't in the greek. The NIV has attempted to translate the idea behind the single word, translated as "brothers" in more "word for word" translations.
3. The ESV has actually begun to take a back seat within the Logos ecosystem. In its place: The LEB. Obviously since Logos OWNS the translation (and gives it away freely), it costs them less to use it.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
For everyone's information, I do like the ESV. I often place it within my favorite 5 translations. My only concern was whether it reflects the church as a whole. In the end, I just wanted to bring the issue back to awareness.
If the copyright holders of the NIV are still so stingy, I understand Logos' reluctance to make it the default translation. Kudos to Crossway, then.
Ok, now that you mentioned it, I am much happier with Logos using the LEB in the future. Whether the translators had an agenda.....I'd rather not even know. I have been using the LEB more and more, and have come to trust it as my backup Bible. Though it's not used by the majority of people in the church, as far as I can tell, I don't feel a theological agenda behind it.
Let me say that Logos is one of the most honest, upright companies I've ever done business with. I'm proud to do business with them. I know some of them, and I call them my brothers and sisters in Christ. I also greatly appreciate the quality of all the work they do. Considering the complexity of the task, it's amazing how they've pulled things together.
So how about it? Who is for the LEB?[<:o)]
0 -
I have no more issue with ESV than any other modern version. I see absolutely no agenda using it as an example. We are free to use whatever version(s) we choose. NIV is slipping down the list for all the reasons listed above. Possibly the biggest issue for me: It borders on a paraphrase in many passages. I like the LEB ...A Lot. I have not made it my prioritized Bible. But it is definitely in the top 5 ... Along with the NASB, And of course KJV. The order and actual usage varies according to my needs and whims. In many cases, I consult far more than the "Top 5 Bibles" >>> I search until I find one that agrees with me. [:P]
0 -
I have been encouraging and promoting the new Sda Starter package and the use of Logos in general.
Guess what the default version is for most Sda's and many churches (including Baptism which is the largest denomination. Drum roll....... KJV.
My preference NKJV, but it really does not matter to me.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
It sounds to me like the KJV is the definite winner in popular usage and admiration. [:)] One cannot deny the facts.
Thanks for pitching in your thoughts, y'all.
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
2. In addition, they should choose a default version that was translated by a team from all different theological perspectives, not only, for example, the Reformed perspective. (I am not saying anything against the Reformed perspective, that is not my concern here). If one examines the translation and review team of the ESV, one can see clearly that nearly all of the involved come from Reformed institutions or ones closely associated with the Reformed perspective.
Your reasoning here, if adhered to, conclusively excludes the NIV from consideration, because neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox use any edition of the NIV; to my knowledge, there isn't even an NIV translation of the whole Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) canon of Scripture.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:Kendall Sholtess said:
2. In addition, they should choose a default version that was translated by a team from all different theological perspectives, not only, for example, the Reformed perspective. (I am not saying anything against the Reformed perspective, that is not my concern here). If one examines the translation and review team of the ESV, one can see clearly that nearly all of the involved come from Reformed institutions or ones closely associated with the Reformed perspective.
Your reasoning here, if adhered to, conclusively excludes the NIV from consideration, because neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox use any edition of the NIV; to my knowledge, there isn't even an NIV translation of the whole Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) canon of Scripture.
I agree with what you say. Then the KJV would work for most, since it has been used by all groups concerned. Perhaps the Queen wouldn't mind, and hasn't it been given an imprimatur of some kind?
Perhaps I should have remained Nameless, as well.
0 -
I would like to point out something. I hope you can look at what I say objectively. I do not wish to engage in a debate, And I surely don't want to offend you. One could surmise that it is YOU who has an agenda. Reading over the whole thread, I see no consensus that KJV is the best/accepted translation, as you propose here. On the contrary. I see a consensus that seems to suggest using many and varied translations. I cut my teeth on KJV. It is deeply entrenched in my memories. I still respect it as "One Of the Best" But not "the definite winner in popular usage and admiration" as you would have us believe.Kendall Sholtess said:It sounds to me like the KJV is the definite winner in popular usage and admiration.
One cannot deny the facts.Thanks for pitching in your thoughts, y'all.
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
I agree with what you say. Then the KJV would work for most, since it has been used by all groups concerned.
The biggest problems there are, I think, that it really is less readable than more modern translations - including the ESV and NIV - and its present non-use in academia, except for poetic effect. The present cultural bias against things that are older - a bias that has more-than-seeped into many if not most Christians' thought patterns, also militates against the KJV.
Frankly, I think that the best translation choice from both ecumenical and scholarly perspectives is almost certainly the NRSV, although I personally prefer the RSV. Both translations were ecumenical in creation, ecumenical in use, literal in intent, and are widely used in academia.
That said, Logos's choice to use the ESV and its reasoning for that is fine by me.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
I don't like the KJV, though as I mentioned in a thread from a month or two back, I'm glad I cut my teeth on the KJV because there are hundreds of passages from the KJV that have entered into the cultural and social conversation. Not being privy to those references (i.e. not recognizing what "mote and beam" means) makes a person conversationally hobbled and impoverished. But...the KJV is both awkward and often just plain wrong at times. I read it now and find that all kinds of concepts that are clear and comprehensible in the NASB are practically invisible. That said, I know of a handful of places where the KJV (and NKJV) provide a more accurate translation (Rev. 13:8, for example), so I still feel it has its place. I'm just not awed by the majesty of the king's English. I'm more concerned with what the original languages say.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
If I absolutely had to choose just one version for everyday use, It would be NASB hands down.Besides being a precise translation, It has many features not offered by others. One that gives me that warm fuzzy feeling is Old Testament Quotes in All Caps.David Paul said:I read it now and find that all kinds of concepts that are clear and comprehensible in the NASB are practically invisible
0 -
I wonder about those stats from CBA. Are those numbers just from Christian retailers? And if so, how much of the market do those stores actually account for?
0 -
I always like these threads that introduce a user issue or thought, and then caution not to theologically debate. What planet are we on? Goodness.
Of course ESV is theologically driven; at our church when they buy new pew Bibles, they chat (being nice here), and then the pastor indicates which one he'll be quoting from (hello!). I can guarantee, when the pastor chooses a version to quote, there's a reason. I've no doubt, every church is the same. There is no possible way they say ... 'Well gee, they're all pretty much alike.'
And there's no way a large digital re-seller is naive. If NRSV had been the cheapy, no way. Logos IS a theological tool for strongly religious people.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, whenever I see ESV as the base for a Logos product, I generally pass. Never happen. I made an exception on OT-Discourse only because I thought the OT-Discourse wasn't up to par, and a major discount. Any translations that pander to a specific view, I pass on.
Now if they had the JSV, of course, it'd be different (that'd be the Julia Smith Version .... CP!!!).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Any translations that pander translate a specific view
All "translators" are "traitors" is a common saying in translation circles. The only way to get a 100% accurate translation is to <wait for it> not translate! That isn't, of course, possible. Even if you were to REALLY learn Greek or Hebrew, you would STILL be translating... for there are cultural and historical barriers as well.
I love the debate of which is "more accurate": a "word for word" translation or a "thought for thought." The answer isn't so simple. Take this as an example:
"Bradley is borrowing the cat’s paws." What in the world does that mean? If I told you that the speaker was Japanese, does that help? No? The phrase "borrowing the cat's paws" is more of a "word for word" translation of a Japanese saying. In American English (because we do have to distinguish), we might say "Bradley doesn't have time to breathe." Which is more "accurate"? The answer is that they both are! If your goal is to help an english speaking person of non-japanese heritage, there probably isn't a good reason to keep the "word for word" saying intact and the second translation would be preferred. On the other hand, if your family is Japanese, and you were translating a child's non-english speaking grandmother to her non-japanese grandchildren, there might be some value in keeping the "word for word" translation for cultural reasons.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Let's look for a possible logical result of this thread. As a software Project Manager I conclude that there is an issue with having the ESV as the default Bible since it harms or offends some users who think there is a better source of truth (or possibly only one source of truth). I determine that though the existing tool gives quick and easy access to choice of default translation by putting it on the front page; that is not sufficient to keep some users from harm or offense.
Now a project kicks off and the team determines that the KJV (NRSV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, Message, Voice, Jerusalem or whatever else) should be the default Bible for Logos users when they first install and use the software or venture into any other forum of the Logos software world. A solution should also fix this problem for all existing users by switching out their default setting at least once following the update. Following the update they can change their default setting to something else.
The dev team completes their project and following rigorous testing on Wednesday they release a new update and it changes everyone's default Bible selection to the KJV (NRSV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, Message, Voice, Jerusalem or whatever the dev team was told to use).
What would be the outcome?
0 -
alabama24, isn't the solution to just look up things in the NIDB from our formal-equivalent versions?
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
alabama24 said:
"Bradley is borrowing the cat’s paws." What in the world does that mean?
A "cat's paw" is a tool used by contractors to remove nails. Everybody knows that, 'bama. All that cultural background stuff is just smoke and mirrors for promoting your own agenda about Bradley being tired, when this is really about him going to work.
[;-)]
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I can't imagine anyone having an older deck, and not having a cat's paw. Talk about efficient. Plus if you turn it over, it's a great hammer too. For many years, we used hammers; big mistake.
Paul C ... let's be objective (and as the OP suggests, go with majority-rule). Women are the majority of God's creation (for sure after 5 years old). And women make up by far the majority of pew-sitters. So it should eminently obvious, a translation that pleases the women is called for. Again, using the OP's logic. Now Julia Smith, from a translational perspective, is somewhat of an embarrassment. But I love her drive; she'd of loved Logos.
And as for 'translation is translation', throw me a bone. Woof, woof! ESV is one of worst pander-ers. NRSV isn't far behind. And as regards for crocodile tears for developers, that's a no-brainer. You design for your target customer .... conservative protestants .... ergo ESV. I've no complaints; I just avoid the Logos ESV-based tools.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
What's the problem? I've set the Net Bible as priority and its shows up in the right-click menu? I am not a native English speaker, thus I don't care about the English translations anyway
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
I was just woofin Ya about the Julia Smith "Translation"Denise said:And as for 'translation is translation', throw me a bone
I tend to view these works as a paraphrase/commentary. You may remember we discussed this a while back when we chatted about J.B. Phillips. I have bookmarked the online Smith Bible, and do enjoy consulting her "Views".
0 -
• The NIV can't be used, for publisher reasons, and because it's anything but neutral.
• The KJV can't be used if Logos is serious about internationalization. The text needs to be understandable by people who aren't native English speakers. (Plus it's not only biased, but also antiquated.)
• I would prefer either the NRSV, because it has the full canon and a wide use, or the LEB, because all further discussions can then be answered with a simple "we use it because we made it and have full control of the rights to it". I don't think it includes the Deuterocanonicals, but it could be supplemented with the LES for those.
MJ. Smith said:As it is simple to change to the default of your choice, I can't get too concerned about the default.
You missed what the thread is about. It's impossible to change the translation you get in the popup if I write Jn 1:1, nor can you change what is used in the videos or the discourse Bibles.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
What English version does everyone use in Libronix/Logos 3? I have it currently set to NRSV for the NT and 4 Ezra, 3-4 Maccabees and the odd portions of the Deuterocanonicals not found in almost any other versions, and NJB for the rest of the OT. Too bad I didn't have more to choose from. I don't have NABRE or the CEB:
Denise said:And as for 'translation is translation', throw me a bone. Woof, woof! ESV is one of worst pander-ers. NRSV isn't far behind.
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
Paul C said:
I would like to point out something. I hope you can look at what I say objectively. I do not wish to engage in a debate, And I surely don't want to offend you. One could surmise that it is YOU who has an agenda. Reading over the whole thread, I see no consensus that KJV is the best/accepted translation, as you propose here. On the contrary. I see a consensus that seems to suggest using many and varied translations. I cut my teeth on KJV. It is deeply entrenched in my memories. I still respect it as "One Of the Best" But not "the definite winner in popular usage and admiration" as you would have us believe.Kendall Sholtess said:It sounds to me like the KJV is the definite winner in popular usage and admiration.
One cannot deny the facts.Thanks for pitching in your thoughts, y'all.
You would be right that I have an agenda. You are not offending me, friend. My agenda is to encourage Logos to change the default version to one that is less sectarian, more widely used among as many denominations as possible. Of course, no Bible translation is used by all denominations. There is clearly a Protestant/Catholic divide for instance, among translations.
The issue is not which translation is better, or more accurate, etc. Obviously if they were able to choose the NIV, that would be favoring Protestants over Catholics, in some respect. But a translation such as the ESV, which is really produced and used intensively by a small sliver of the Protestant camp, is rather extreme, and promotes a specific theological agenda.
What I hope for is a Bible that as many denominations as possible use. So far the only a few translations have fit that description, i.e. the NIV, KJV, and others I may not be fully aware of (LEB?). Is unity among brethren too much to hope for?
I'll tell you this: when I see the ESV promoted everywhere, which has not gained wide acceptance in the church, I personally don't feel very unified. As you can see from this thread, I am not alone.
So if my friends on the other side can be happy, and my friends from afar as well, without stepping on toes, that is the best outcome.
0 -
What about: NCPB?
The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha, rev. ed. (NCPB)
https://www.logos.com/product/24557/the-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible-with-the-apocrypha-rev-ed""Although it is the most important book in the English-speaking world’s religious life and culture, the King James Bible (or Authorized Version of 1611) has never been as perfectly represented in print as the translators intended. Standard editions currently give, with little variation, the text as established by the Blayney edition of 1769. This leaves the reader with a seventeenth-century text in mid-eighteenth-century clothes—clothes neither original nor modern.
Edited by David Norton, The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is an important scholarly edition that presents a revised KJV text based on a thorough evaluation of the textual variants present in current renderings. It includes the extant notes of the 1611 translators. The text itself is presented in paragraph form, with marginal notes, and it adopts modern spelling and punctuation conventions to make it easy to read and use.""
[[If it became the official standard Bible Logos would need to release it. Currently stuck in Pre-pub at about 25% or so.]]
0 -
fgh said:
It's impossible to change the translation you get in the popup if I write Jn 1:1,
That is something they should fix by allowing people to choose their own favorite default for RefTagger popups.
fgh said:nor can you change what is used in the videos
They aren't going to redo all the videos just to change what version of the Bible they use in them.
fgh said:or the discourse Bibles.
This is no different from the situation with commentaries; the series editors choose a particular version to use and stick with it for all the volumes in the series. People just have to deal with it if it isn't their preferred version. Granted, most commentaries use a more commonly used version than ESV. NIV is quite popular among the commentaries I use regularly.
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
What I hope for is a Bible that as many denominations as possible use. So far the only a few translations have fit that description, i.e. the NIV, KJV, and others I may not be fully aware of (LEB?). Is unity among brethren too much to hope for?
Yes, but which version? What you wish for just isn't possible. 10 years ago, in conservative protestant circles in the United States, you <might> have been able to make a case for the NIV84 (probably not), but certainly the NIV11 doesn't fit the bill. There is ever the greater diversification in translations... and that isn't ALL bad.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
fgh said:
You missed what the thread is about.
I didn't miss it - I simply chose to ignore the < 1% of the Bible text I see in the Logos family.
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 -
Rosie Perera said:
This is no different from the situation with commentaries
In the commentaries my complaint is the difficulty of setting the resource default Bible to the Bible used by the commentator - problem of volume of setting it up not of possibility.
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 -
Kendall Sholtess said:What I hope for is a Bible that as many denominations as possible use.
Well, that rules out the NIV and the KJV...
Rosie Perera said:That is something they should fix by allowing people to choose their own favorite default for RefTagger popups.
[Y] Perhaps someone can post that in the RefTagger forum, if it isn't there already?
Rosie Perera said:They aren't going to redo all the videos just to change what version of the Bible they use in them.
Of course not. I was just trying to get everyone to talk about the same thing the OP was talking about. The discussion gets easier to follow that way... I also think we're talking about what they should do in the future, not about redoing the past. Videos ought to be the easiest, I would think: just use different translations in different videos. For surely they don't have to pay royalty to use a translation in a video? Normally companies pay to have their brand seen on film.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
fgh said:
Rosie Perera said:
That is something they should fix by allowing people to choose their own favorite default for RefTagger popups.
Perhaps someone can post that in the RefTagger forum, if it isn't there already?I'm pretty sure this has been requested multiple times before.
0 -
fgh said:
Kendall Sholtess said:
What I hope for is a Bible that as many denominations as possible use.
Well, that rules out the NIV and the KJV...
brand seen on film.
As far as I can tell, the NIV is still used by the majority of evangelical Protestant churches. A lot of people simply don't have the hang-ups about the gender language in the NIV. There was a big anti-NIV campaign done by the ESV people, and I think it did affect a lot of people. But could it be that some of those people swtiched back to the KJV?
Despite the difficulty of getting the copyright situation cleared up, I still think that the NIV is the most widely used, and thus if any version is used as default, it should be the NIV.
If you come from a denomination which uses the NRSV regularly, I think you are even more in the minority than the ESV'ers. So if you spend all your time just traveling from church to church within your denomination, that would certainly add to the impression that the NIV is not used by many denominations.
0 -
Kendall Sholtess said:
As far as I can tell, the NIV is still used by the majority of evangelical Protestant churches
Wasn't the premise of your issue hinged upon the ESV potentially being biased toward evangelicals? If so, then we're all safe since the majority of evangelical Protestant churches are using the NIV, eh?
"I read dead people..."
0 -
-
Brother Mark said:Kendall Sholtess said:
As far as I can tell, the NIV is still used by the majority of evangelical Protestant churches
Wasn't the premise of your issue hinged upon the ESV potentially being biased toward evangelicals? If so, then we're all safe since the majority of evangelical Protestant churches are using the NIV, eh?
No, that wasn't my issue. The ESV is not an evangelical translation. And it really represents a tiny sliver of the Protestant church. All I'm saying is that if you are using a Protestant translation as your default, use one which is used by majority of Protestants, preferably translated by a committee of Protestants from many different denominations (as the NIV was). Not to do so is taking sides in a theological debate, whether intentional or not.
On the Verbum website, feel free to use the NABre, or whatever Catholics and Orthodox use the most. That's not my business.
0
