GNB Compared With The TNIV

EdSutton beat you to the punch with that comment years ago.

Fear not.It's also called The New Berkeley Version In Modern English.Gerrit Verkuyl was the man behind the whole process.Then he got a team of scholars to put the whole thing together.The last time it was revised was in 1969.

It's a good standby version.It's a sentimental favorite of mine.

 

G=GNB
T =TNIV
M=MLB

1 Timothy

1:5

G : The purpose of this order is to arouse the love that comes from a pure heart,a clear conscience,and a genuine faith.

T : The goal of this command is love,which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

M : The purpose of our instruction,however,is love that rises out of a pure heart,a clear conscience,and undisguised faith.

1:11

G : That teaching is found in the gospel that was entrusted to me to announce,the Good News from the glorious and blessed God.

T : that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God,which he entrusted to me.

M : according to the glorious good news of the blessed God,with which I have been entrusted.

2 Timothy

2:20

G : In a large house there are dishes and bowls of all kinds:some are made of silver and gold,others of wood and clay;some are for special occasions,others for ordinary use.

T : In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver,but also of wood and clay;some are for noble purposes and some for disposal of refuse.

M : But in a large house there are not only gold and silver utensils,but wooden and earthen too,and some are indeed for noble but others for ignoble use.

3:8

G : As James and Jambres were opposed to Moses,so also these people are opposed to the truth --people whose minds do not function and who are failures in the faith.

T : Just as James and Jambres opposed Moses,so also these teachers oppose the truth.They are men of depraved minds,who,as far as the faith is concerned,are rejected.

M : Just as James and Jambres opposed Moses,so do these men oppose the truth,corrupt thinkers as they are counterfeits so far as faith is concerned.

4:6

G : As for me,the hour has come for me to be sacrificed;the time is here for me to leave this life.

T : For I am already being poured out like a drink offering,and the time for my departure is near.

M : For I am already being poured out as a drink offering and the time of my death has come.

4:17

G : But the Lord stayed with me and gave me strength,so that I was able to proclaim the full message for all the Gentiles to hear;and I was rescued from being sentenced to death.

T : But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength,so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it.And I was delivered from the lion's mouth.

M : But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me,so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it.And I was rescued from the lion's jaws.

 

Love comes from,rises, or springs from love.The command,order or instruction does not 'arouse' love as the GNB has it.

"For ordinary use"?No,that's too euphemistic.The TNIV spells it out and the MLB takes the middle-of-the-road approach.

"People whose minds do not function"?That is clearly not cutting it."Men of depraved minds" is much more to the point.The MLB's rendering isn't too bad.The Weymouth has "men of debased mind" which is quite effective.

Apparently "poured out like a drink offering" didn't appeal to the GNB translators.

The Greek has :"of my departure".The TNIV came closest to the way older versions like the KJV,NRSV and Weymouth have it.The MLB spells it out.

The "lion's mouth"(TNIV) or "lion's jaws" (MLB) are more literal."Sentenced to death" expresses the idea but lags a lot with respect to impact.

 

The TNIV words it:"confidence in the flesh" as do other more formally-equivalent versions.However,the GNB has "trust in external ceremonies".Even a mediating version such as the NET Bible has "human credentials".

The Greek equivalent,as per the NET notes: whose end is destruction,whose god is their belly and glory is their shame,those who think of earthly things.I think the TNIV comes a lot closer to being more literal here than the GNB.

Come on now."I am not saying this because I am feeling neglected"?That's weak."I am not saying this because I am in need"is much more literal.

 

The GNB has "the one who arranges a new covenant".TNIV :"the mediator of a new covenant".Which rendering is more dynamic?

The TNIV has :"the promised eternal inheritance".The GNB has :"the promised eternal blessings".

The TNIV has "in holy fear".The GNB has not even touched on the idea.The NET text has "reverent regard".

By the way,this post deals with the book of Hebrews (if you didn't pick up on that).

 

Colossians

The word 'reconcile' is also in the REB,NJB,MLB,NRSV and Weymouth among many others.It's an important word and concept.But since the GNB simplifies and uses dynamic-equivalency much of the time other wording is put it its place.

TNIV -- no favoritism
REB,NJB -- no favouritism
NRSV,MLB -- no partiality
Wey -- no merely earthly distinctions

 

I will quote from a favorite book of mine The Challenge Of Bible Translation,with General Editors Scorgie,Strauss and Voth.

These quotes are from Kenneth Barker's chapter : Bible Translation Philosophies With Special Reference To The New International Version.

At this point the reader may be surprised that the NIV has not been included as an illustration of either of these two major types of translations.[Formal equivalance on the one hand,and functional equivalence on the other. RIP]The reason is that,in my opinion,it fits neither. After considerable personal study,comparison,and analysis,I have become convinced that, in order to do justice to translations like the NIV and the New Revised standard Version (NRSV),scholars must recognize the validity of a third major category of translation, namely, the balanced or mediating type. (p.53)
________________________________________________________

A distinction must be made between dynamic equivalence as a translation principle and dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. The latter exists only when a version sets out to produce a dynamic-equivalence rendering from start to finish, as the GNB did. The forward to the Special Edition Good News Bible indicates that word-for-word translation does not accurately convey the force of the original,so the GNB uses instead the "dynamic equivalent," the words having the same force and meaning today as the original text had for its first readers. Dynamic equivalence as a translation principle, on the other hand, is used in varting degrees by all versions of the Bible. (p.55)
__________________________________________________________

[Here Barker quotes himself from 1978 in The story Of The New International Version]

As for the NIV,its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for the most part on a flexible use of concordance, but with a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence. In other words, the NIV satands on middle ground -- by no means the easiest position to occupy. It may fairly be said that the translators were convinced that,through long patience in seeking the right words, it is possible to attain a high degree of faithfulness in putting into clear and idiomatic English what the Hebrew and Greek texts say. Whatever literary distinction the NIV has is the result of the persistence with which this course was pursued. (p.57)
________________________________________________________

Strictly speaking,then, the NIV is not a dynamic-equivalence translation. If it were, it would read "snakes will no longer be dangerous"(GNB) instead of "dust will be the serpent's food" (Isaiah 65:25)....Similiar illustrations could be multiplied to demonstrate that the NIV is an idiomatically balanced translation. (p.59)

 

The following is from an article of Donald W. Burdick's. Part One:Bible Translation:Why,What, And How? (1975)

The NIV is freer than either of these translations,[Williams' N.T. and the RSV] but it is no means in the category of the NEB,Beck and the TEV. It is still somewhat under the influence of the word-for-word approach. This middle ground position is one of its strengths. Its accuracy is guaranteed by its freedom to employ current English equivalent idiom.

 

I'll be quoting again from Philip W. Comfort's book :Essential Guide To Bible Versions.This post will deal with some verses in the first chapter of John.At the time his book was published he was making reference to the TEV.The GNB updated things somewhat.Sometimes I have slightly adjusted Comfort's words without muting his message.

1:1a
When all things began,the Word already was. (NEB)


In the beginning the Word already existed. (GNB)


In the beginning was the Word (TNIV)

The paraphrases in the NEB and [GNB] might alarm the careful reader because, although their renderings indicate that the Word existed prior to Creation,they do not convey the idea that the Word existed from the beginning or from all eternity -- which is the meaning probably intended by John.

1:4

The Word was the source of life, and this life brought life to humanity. (GNB)

In him was was life, and that life was the light of all people. (TNIV)

Although this [GNB rendering] is in accord with the total thought of John's Gospel, it perhaps goes beyond what John intended here.

1:8b
he came to tell about the light. GNB)

he came only as a witness to the light. (TNIV)

..."tell" [GNB],while easy to understand, fails to convey the notion of verification and substantiation.

1:13c

...God himself was their Father (GNB)

...but born of God. (TNIV)

The paraphrase of the [GNB] is not necessary.


1:14b

and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. (NEB)



...We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son. (GNB)


We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (TNIV)

... [the] NEB and [GNB] say the glory came from the Father. But the Greek text does not indicate that the glory came from the Father to the Son. Having just declared the incarnation of the Word, John is here viewing the Son as having come from the Father.