Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"

Read with understanding. Do not misinterpret. Take your time.[/QUOTE]

At times though, it is best to bring over into the english phrasing and terminology that while might seem to be stilted/awkward, seems to reflect and catch what the original intent of God was!

 

The basic dispute here regarding which is the more accurate bible translation to the original intent of God revolves upon which do you think has the best approach to getting to that, one holding to striving to keep readability at all times, or else one who does think that at times its better to keep an awkward rendering, since that would fit better what the original said?

 

!!! Everything you say must end in an exclamation mark!!! It's that significant!!!

Some things in the orginal are obscure. And the obscurity should be maintained. But I think some Bible translations are needlessly awkward --not because the clumsy renderings are more faithful to the original --but just because it keeps to the KJVish phraselogy.

 

All of the above is one very long run-on sentence. I can tell you are against readability. Your posts evidence that all the time.

"to getting to that"
"to striving to keep"
"its better to keep"

 

ummm.... what? Brother, Rippon and myself and numerous others have encouraged you to put more (any?) effort into readability and spelling. Please listen.

 

What is the u;tomate aim for the Bible translation?

To always have it translated so that it retains clear readibility at all times, is always changed to keep up with current English grammar, or else to accept that at times a better rendering into the English might read and seek to be somewhat ackward and "wooden?"

 

"U;tomate"?

"always"
"readibility"
"at all times
"is always"

Since you have already used "always" it is not necessary to use the same thought again and again and again in the same sentence. "Readability" should be readability."

"The English" is poor English. The definite article is not necessary.

Why should translators aim to use awkward and wooden language sometimes? You claim that by doing so it would be a better rendering in English. That makes no sense at all. I don't think that is a valid translation principle (to say the least).

Here are some suggestions for your posts:

Make your sentences shorter.
Shorter sentences are easier to understand.
Shorter sentences will usually have less mistakes.
Your goal is for readers to understand what you are trying to convey.
Have respect for the readers of your posts.
Take the time to edit your posts.
You apparently have a great deal of time to make many more posts than the average BBer.
Take the time to evaluate your logic and consistency.
Don't ask the same questions over and over and over.
Do not end most of your posts with an exclamation mark.
Do not use the quote feature to quote very long passages from another poster just for you to add a few lines of your own.

 

Do you think that there have been ANY examples where the Niv, in attempting to make it "more clear" to modern reader, missed the mark as compared to how say the Nas/Nkjv chose to translate the passage?

 

This readability thing has become abused much like the doctrine the Priesthood of the beleiver. They both have become excuses to justify all kinds of things not necessary. It is all a bunch of hooey.

 

Would say that there are instances where the Niv has made it easier to understand the gist of what was said and meant, but that overall, the more formal version would be preferred...

 

True, as though i am a Nas preferred person, marvel that we must have a revision every 10 years to suit some!

Wonder how God ever was able to use that ole kjv for all those years?

 

"The gist"? Surely you jest.

To certain people who have little understanding.

 

So that means you would be the kind of individual to dismiss the updates/revisions of the NLT, HCSB, ESV and other versions.

God is in the business of using the weak and beggardly elements to further His kingdom. By the way, the KJV has had multiple "improvements" over the centuries. It has not been frozon or static. Martin Luther's translation was updated five times in his life alone.

Revisions are needed in all versions. To deny that reality is to live in a fantasy world.

 

I grow weary of hearing how this translation is clumsy or that translation is awkward. The adjectives assigned to the many various english translations in order to justify their personal preferences as being somehow on a higher plane than all others are just absurd.

 

Your typical drive-by has been duly noted ...and ...found wanting. Surprise.

To merely denounce with no supporting evidence is..what shall I say? That's right...hooey.

"Readability thing." Ha, Ha.

 

You need to demonstrate --not just remonstrate.

 

Not nearly as often as you seem to believe that they do though!

I still have and use bothe the 1984 Niv/1977 nasb, and actually believe their revisions made them worse, not better...

 

The cry to have the one that is easiest to understand, or the ones that will fit best into current views on things such as gender/feminism fuels much of this I fear..