The NIV 2011 version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by evangelist6589, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,367
    Likes Received:
    105
    Was doing some personal study on this online and stumbled across this page (http://www.befcvt.org) which is quite interesting. Check it out. I personally have not read the NIV 11 except on my phone and dislike how it translates some phrases, however it may be possible that the Greek used in some places is Gender Neutral and could be translated "children" or "brothers & sisters" and the NIV scholars have remained faithful to the text. This article also heavily criticizes the ESV, however his biggest arguments seem to be in regards to the context of the way the version phrases animals.

    Does he make good arguments or not? What say you of the NIV 11 version? If you dislike the NIV then do not post your bias, but please cite specifics. I like the NIV 84, however its far from perfect, but still a very good translation.
     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    prefer a formal translation, such as nasb/Nkjv myself, but the niv and esv and HCSB are all good versions, just the 1984 superior to newest one for bible study use!
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    ESV is a formal translation and the NIV is inferior to any formal translation.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    Agreed! Still has its place, as is a good introduction tot he Bible for recently saved, and to those never read a bible before!

    Still prefer the 1984 edition if using it though!
     
  5. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    76
    Every translation has to deal with the issue of "word for word" vs. "thought for thought"
    In other words, should a translation tell us what the text says, or what is meant?
    Translation or Interpretive Translation?

    I heavily favor being told what was said. Invariably, when the translators take it upon themselves to interpret also, doctrinal bias will creep in at some pretty key points

    For instance, 1John 1:8 tells us that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves. However, later in the letter, he says that those who are born of God are not able to sin (3:9). There is a way to reconcile it without including interpretive elements that only confuse.

    Another example is when some translations interpret "flesh" as "sin nature"

    There is absolutely no call for these instances of doctrinal bias, as they only contribute to error upon error
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In his OP Evan said:"If you dislike the NIV then do not post your bias,but please cite specifics." I know you like to be brief --but you cite no specifics.

    How do you define a formal translation?
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It's not an either/or situation. Should all idioms be translated in a slavishly literal manner? If not, then the translation tells what is meant. How can any kind of translation not tell the reader what is meant?
    There is no such animal as a non-interpretive translation. All translations have to make exegetical decisions i.e. interpretations.

    Must sarx always be translated into English with the word flesh or fleshly? There is a semantic range that you are discounting. Even the supposed "essentially literal" ESV translates it as flesh less than 80% of the time.
     
  8. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    Agreed. I don't dislike the NIV and don't mind using it at all, but I wouldn't use it for studying.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So I suppose that you would also not consider using the ISV,NET Bible and HCSB as well --they occupy the same mediating turf as the NIV.
     
  10. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    For studying? Probably not. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use them at all, though. While I don't own an NIV I've sometimes looked up verses in the NIV online to see if that could help me understand the verse a bit better since it's written in everyday language. But for deep study, I'd prefer a literal translation.
     
  11. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    76
    I agree to some extent. But why translate an obvious idiom "three days and nights" literally and not sarx?

    Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days and three nights, but some fringe ultra-literalists would disagree because of this choice to translate an idiom literally. I'm actually ok with this literal rendering, because it makes me study when I encounter this phrase up against the Pharisees asking Pilate to have guards "until" the third day, and Paul saying Jesus rose on the third day (not the fourth day)


    Actually, I would prefer that it always be translated to support MY doctrine. Fair enough?



    "supposed" is right.


    I like the comment by questdriven:
    I actually do use it a little for studying, but only in a parallel bible, so I can compare the interpretive elements at a glance to KJV, NASB, and Amplified
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    HCSB done by SCC translating team of scholats, and seems to be more conservative than Niv in some ways!
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    not saying that the Niv is a bad version, but that it is not as good as a version that adopted a formal translation policy as as Nasb/Nkjv, as they would be hiolding more strictly to original languageconstruction and terminology as as Greek verbage in the case of nasb!

    Would see it as fine to use Niv/Hcbs/esv for bible reading, serious studies more formal one!
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    What doctrine are you making reference to?
    You are aware that all translation is in essence interpretation --aren't you? If you think that the KJV,NASB and Amplified are pure as the driven snow in that regard then you are sadly mistaken.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    Yes, but the Nkjv/Nasb has much less than the Niv has, correct?
     

Share This Page

Loading...