Dr. Ray Clendenen defending the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) at Liberty University's Biblical Studies Symposium on Monday, September 26, 2011 (following by the audio).
Clendenen (HCSB)
Dr. Wayne Grudem defending the English Standard Version (ESV) (below is the audio).
Grudem-evening-audio
Dr. Douglas Moo defending the New International Version (2011) (NIV) (below is the audio).
This video contains Dr. Moo, Dr. Grudem, and Dr. Clendenen's responses to each other (about 15 minutes long). That is followed by a question and answer time (about 30 minutes). Below the video is the audio.
Below is the morning message from Wayne Grudem on the trustworthiness of Scripture.
8 comments:
It would have been nice to have Dr. Wallace there to discuss the NET Bible, though it could be said that the HCSB is similar enough.
I just listened to Dr. Moo on the NIV and then Dr. Grudem on the ESV. Both were interesting and I'm so glad I took the time to listen to these men this morning.
At my side near my reading chair I have available the ESV by Crossway, NASB MacArthur Study Bible, and the 2008 NIV Study Bible. I utilize all of them. In defense of the NIV so many of the women in the class that I teach are not readers, so hearing the Word read from the NIV or even the NLT they "get it." But for me I need the ESV or the NASB. I'm thankful to have the ability to use all of them.
Thanks.
cterry,
I totally agree. I had thought about ways to include Wallace and the NET, but it didn't work out. I would have loved to see Wallace debate Romans 3:22 with Moo and Isaiah 7:14 with Clendenen.
I use the NET Bible everyday.
Thanks for the audio links. It is so good to hear from those actually involved in translation rather than way others think or feel about it. I use all three of these translations depending on the situation. While overall I personally feel the NIV is the best general purpose translation, we are do blessed to see how other translators handle the original languages.
I enjoyed the videos. Personally, I favor the HCSB, but I am really having a difficult time taking them seriously. Case in point, I recently asked them if they had any plans of releasing an interlinear and the response I got back was a negative. Which means, use the HCSB Study Bible or Apologetics Study Bible and be happy. I find that insane. If I have to use the ESV interlinear, I might as well just use the ESV as my text.
Thanks for pointing to these videos of the symposium. I was impressed by Moo’s presentation. He rightly pointed out the very different preconceptions of receptor audience that the NIV and the ESV translators seem to have. Actually both the ESV and HCSB assume an audience which is very keen to investigate any nuance of the text and has the resources, energy, time and willingness to do so. I don’t think that’s a correct assumption to make for the majority of English Bible readers.
I thought that Grudem’s presentation showed a lack of understanding of some facets of Bible translation. Regarding gender language, he seems to see no difference in the semantic range of the grammatically singual specific referent adelphos and the grammatically singular generic referent adelphos. In my mind that makes the difference as to whether you add “and sisters” or not.
I enjoyed the comments each speaker made on their respective translation. However, the comments directed at each other's translation, and others, was disturbing. To make fun or denigrate another translation to build up one's own is unnecessary. Reading press releases from the HCSB seems to confirm such. Such makes people wonder if market share is what drives these different publishers.
"...if market share is what drives these different publishers." Bingo, Robert!
While most of the world still has no Bible (!!) in their native tongue, we are still investing millions in yet another English translation.
And at the end of the day - and I have heard this directly from the mouths of Christian publishing rep's myself - "market share" is the primary motivation.
Post a Comment