Do any other "modern-version-ers" besides me dislike the NIV?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know several authors do such as Dr. Stewart Custer at Bob Jones University and other Bible-believers as well.

    The most "dynamic" translation I use iS the ESV.

    What are your thoughts? [​IMG]
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't care for the NIV. I prefer the NASB, NKJV, KJV, Geneva, etc... over the NIV.
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV is one of my top 3 favorites. [​IMG]
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I distrust the NIV due to the combination of the translation philosophy and the theological make up of the committee. Some were conservative but others apparently were liberal and higher critics.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    My recollection is that the translators of the NIV had to sign a statement on inerrancy (the Chicago Statement, perhaps?).
     
  6. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like whom, for instance?
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    While I know some dynamic equivalence is necessary to convey the translation of some of the Greek & Hebrew into English, I believe the NIV over-uses it. However, I believe it IS a valid BV.
     
  8. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the NIV is good translation -but I find it very bland and unengaging. I rarely if ever take it off of my shelf.
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I love dynamic equivalent translations for reading. My children and now my grandchildren will be read to from such.

    They are NOT good word-for-word formal equivalent that I would use for in-depth Bible study.

    Reading to bless my spirit and deep study to enrich my mind are two different things.

    BTW, I prefer the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) to the NIV as a "reading" dynamic translation.
     
  10. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally do not favor the NIV's dynamic equivalency, and I question the motive of the translators, but all as far as dynamic translations go it seems pretty good.
     
  11. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't mind the NIV for just reading/devotions, but I only use a literal translation for detailed study.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The NIV is a distinctly dynamic equivalence translation that is theologically biased towards the Reformed tradition. These facts, in my opinion, make it an unacceptable translation for lay persons who do not have a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and a strong background in theology.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said it is biased toward the Reformed position? The last time I checked, just about anything produced by a conservative Reformed person was good (works of B.B. Warfield, Hodge's Systematic Theology, Dr. James White's King James Only Controversy, et al.)

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said it is biased toward the Reformed position?

    And why mention it if you're trying to dissuade people from using it? [​IMG]
     
  15. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah...cuz being biased toward the reformed tradition is bloody damnable isn't it?

    [​IMG]I don't wanna sound rude, but I am Reformed and I take offense at that. Just because I may believe that God is sovereign and that only some people come to salvation and that that is the way God has it planned, doesn't mean I am a bad person. And it sure as there is a hell shouldn't discount me as a theologian.

    Same with a Bible translation. ANY dynamic equivalent translation will be biased toward a particular tradition. The NLT seems very much biased against the Reformed tradition. It is much less accurate too.

    Point being, we shouldn't throw something out because it doesn't read right with our theology. 1 Timothy, where Paul says, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4 ESV) doesn't seem to jive with my theology, but I don't throw it out (in fact, I try daily to mold my theology to fit the text). The Purpose Driven Life didn't always jive with my theology, but I didn't throw it out.

    Different translations of the Bible pick up on different nuances of the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes a Greek word can have multiple meanings and the context gives no clues whatsoever to which meaning to use. The different translations help us see those meanings.

    hmm...I'm gonna stop...sorry to go off...I just really dislike people's attitude toward Reformed people sometimes, especially when it gives the implication that we don't know our stuff.

    I do not like the NIV at all and I am Reformed. It's not biased toward the reformed tradition, it's just a bad translation, in my opinion.
     
  16. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    To mix it up even more, I am NOT Reformed or Calvinistic at all, and I love the NIV. [​IMG]
     
  17. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the NIV too. When I tried to switch to the NASU, I soon discovered that the "literal" word for word translation has many translations that I didn't agree with too.

    There is no substitute for knowing Hebrew and Greek.

    Having used the NIV for twenty years now, the flow of the text seems much more conducive then even the ESV.

    If you don't know Hebrew or Greek, reading from the NIV, NASU, KJV, ESV, HCSB will show you where translation difficulties lie.
     
  18. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the NIV may read more smoothly, but that doesn't mean it is a good version of the Scriptures. The TNIV reads pretty nicely as well, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a crap translation. A nice read shouldn't be our test for choosing a Bible version. Accuracy should be the first thing we look for.
     
  19. Michael52

    Michael52
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't really "dislike" the NIV, but there are other versions I like better.

    The NIV was the second BV I read cover-to-cover. It is fairly "readable" and that helps one to cover a lot quickly. However, just being able to briskly read through passages quickly has the it's disadvantages. I tend to not be able to remember what I just read. It just doesn't engage my attention (mind, spirit, etc) as it should.

    An interlinear, of course, forces me to slloooowww ddoooowwnn. It really engages all my faculties, to the point of pain in short order. :eek:

    The ideal is somewhere between the extreme "accuracy" of rigid formalality (interlinear) and a less accurate loose paraphrase.

    For me, the NIV misses the ideal balance, toward the paraphrase end. It has too much in common with the first BV I read cover-to-cover: "Good News For Modern Man". Certainly, the NIV is much superior to the GNMM, but you get the idea.
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    APuritanMindset said:

    Yes, the NIV may read more smoothly, but that doesn't mean it is a good version of the Scriptures.

    Whenever I've done a close study of the meaning of some Greek word, looking at how the word was used historically, how it was used at the time of the New Testament, how it was generally used by the Biblical author in question, and so forth, at the conclusion I've found myself agreeing with the NIV's rendering more often than not.

    If that is an inaccurate translation, may inaccurate translations increase.
     

Share This Page

Loading...