NIV strong points and weaknesses?

I prefer the 1984 edition of the NIV, as I am one that uses both NASB/NKJV, as I think that their translation policies more accurate to original languages than those used by NIV translators...

Also, not really that much into additional "inclusive renderingsd" being added into the newest revision of the Niv!

So do still use the Niv, just the 1984 edition!

 

If you liked the improvements that the TNIV had made over that of the 84 NIV --you should like the current NIV better. It is a slightly modified TNIV.

 

were there enough differnces in the 2011 revision to warrent it to be produced and replacing though the TNIV?

what couldn't Zondervan JUST have kep the TNIV study bible, and have the 1984 edition still available for all other NIV bibles they sold?

 

Which completely discredits it.

The translation team brought in a homosexual (regardless of her role)

Again completely discredits it.

 

Whoever is without sin should cast the first stone.

There were several hundred on the translation committee. One lady was on a committee who was to look at the Old Testament Translation and make sure that its English Grammar was correct and matched the rest of the translation. There were about ten or more people on this committee and it is my understanding she didn't stick with it long enough to make any changes. Several years later she admitted in public that she was a homosexual.

I do not think that this would render a book with checks and balances of the translation, renderings and grammar in the form of several hundred on multiple specialized committees that checked each other can be judged by the sins of one person. I imagine you could find somebody who has committed adultery or fornication in this committee since it is so big; would that make the book unuseable?

This is more of Ripplinger and other's who tend to quote part of the story and don't bother to tell the whole story. They have made quite a bit of money trashing The Word Of God. I would not want to stand in front of God in their shoes.

 

I am concerned with what the original manuscripts say, not how many times a translation uses the word "Jesus" or "Son of God". If God didn't quote the name "Jesus" as many times as any translation, then that translation is in error. This is far too deep of translation science for most of us to even consider which would be the correct manuscripts based on the manuscript information we have now. It is my understanding that most Biblical Scholars say we have in excess of 99% of the NT and even more of the original OT. Some say up to 99.9%. Just because a Bible translates a line differently does NOT mean that they are mutually exclusive.

 

I like much of what you say on the BB, but what you say here discredits your ability to reason rationally far more than it discredits the NIV- and I say that as no big fan of the NIV.

 

I agree, it is not my favorite translation either, by a long-shot, but the argument is as I stated above. The homosexual issue is a poor argument.

 

the thing is though that she was JUST part of the group that looked at how the Niv 'flowed' in the English translation, she had NOTHING to do with the scholars that actually translated off the Greek/hebrew texts, and she even wrote letters that affirmed that she did NOTHING to add ANY homosexual "readings" into the text, and that the Niv was no less/more "homosexual" than any other English version!

 

Basically, there is such a substantial agreement between the Greek text, wether MT/CT/TR etc, that ANY version based upon them and translated properily would be the word of God to us for todayin english!

As the doctrine in inerrancy applies to JUST the original manuscripts"texts", and as such, any of the Greek texts used today by Christian scholars would accurately reflect the bible for today!

 

Summarizes my point very well.

 

Phillip, thank you for your reply.

First, I'm NOT a scholar, as it's often defined. I'm just a lay person trying to learn more about both what's in the scriptures and how they came about. In my study, I've run across the issue of the "original manuscripts" many times. Sometimes the points being made are valid. At others the term is just a smoke screen. The "original manuscripts" don't exist. Period. Even, the first set of the 10 commandments were destroyed. Other examples of destruction of the original documents is recorded in the scriptures themselves.

I beg to disagree with any Bibical Scholar who claims any percentage of either the OT or the NT is the "original". I'm trying to be careful here and not read into your words more than you intend. And, further, I'd like to be corrected if the following statement isn't true.

There isn't a shard of clay, piece of parchment, scroll of papyrus, or any other means of recording words in existence that were touched by the hands of the authors of the books of the Bible. Copies, yes. Numerous copies, in some cases, yes. God did promise to preserve His word.

Here's the quandry, in layman's terms, as I understand it. I've picked a chapter in the Bible, at random, to make the point. The numbers used are not actual. Daniel Chapter 11.

Thus far there are 20 manuscripts in existance that agree with each other on the text they contain. There are 5 manuscripts that have slight variations with the 20. And, there are 2 manuscripts that have major variations.

Bible translators have all 27 texts in front of them to be translated into English. Additionally, they have the works of others who have done some or all of the translation of Daniel 11 at an earlier point in time.

Translation team A's completed work is based primarly on the 20 that are in agreement. Plus, studying the works of those preceeding them, and reviewing any available texts that were not included in the final product.

Translation team B's completed work is centered on the 2 manuscripts that have material disagreement with the majority of the copies of the "originals".

If your life depended on chosing which completed translation of Daniel chapter 11, is God's preserved word, which one would you choose? Where the two translations are in agreement, there is no problem. God's preserved word is in both of them. But, your life depends on knowing the truth for all of Daniel 11.

IMHO, this is the quandry. This is the arguement that's been brewing since 1881 with most "modern" translations. It's not about the "originals" as they don't exist. It's whether we choose to support the impact that Hort and Westcott had with their choices of manuscripts, or not, for English bibles.

Again, IMHO, debates over the correct spelling of Savior vs Saviour, while important on some levels, are immaterial when compared to doctrine differences resulting from the choices made by translation teams A & B.

In closing, these comments are just a layman's observations for whatever they may be worth.

 

What doctrine differences? Can you point some out?

 

I don't even know who Riplinger is. Never heard of him. Not knowing who is on the committee shows a severe lack of judgment. And yes if one of them or any of them were in any other type of grievous sin such as adultery it makes it unusable as you put it. If you want to use something like that then more power to you. But if this is the issue they brought up then it is not the Word of God they were trashing it is the particular version. And by the way the "whole story" does not make it any better.

 

It doesn't matter. It shows poor judgment on the other scholars. She should have never been invited whether they knew it or not. She had no mind of God and should not be part of handling the things of God. I have never said there wee any "homosexual" reading into it. I have never even thought it did.

 

Quick, without Googling, name for us all of the men involved with the translation of your favorite version and tell us all of their religious affiliations and don't forget their sins, real and imagined.

You are making yourself look silly with these posts.

 

Depending on the translation being read, Christ was

-- born of a virgin or born of a young woman

and

-- His father was God or Joseph was His father.


Using slave vs servant removes the freedom to chose. A slave has no choice but to obey his master. A servant choses to obey or leave. As humans, we have the choice to serve God or reject Him.

 

All of those are translational, not doctrinal.

 

Poor translation choice, but doesn't change any doctrines.

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. KJV


John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? KJV

Does the KJV change doctrine?

If you're referring to the Greek word doulos, then slave is the correct translation.

 

Virgin Birth - "Poor translation choice" vs bringing the virgin birth into question or ignoring it altogether which definitely affects doctrine.

Luke 2:48 and John 6.42 - context

Luke 2:48 is explained in the following two verses.
49: And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 50: And they understood not the sayings which he spake unto them.

John 6:42 - Who spoke those words "father and mother"? Jews who did not believe Jesus. In the following verses Jesus corrects them.

Slave vs servant. I'm not an ancient Greek scholar. I have no idea what word designating status of the individuals were in the various manuscripts that led to the old and modern translation lines. Thus I can't reply directly. However, saying that a single word in one language correctly translates to a single word in another language, in all contexts, leaves me wondering. Within the English language a single word can have many meanings depending on the context. To say that the CEO of a company is a slave to his job has a context much different than saying a slave was chained to the oars of a ship. Is slave the only English word for doulos within any context that doulos is used?

More more on doctrine changes. http://www.biblebc.com/Christian_Helps/BibleVersions/bible_doctrines_affected.htm