-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which was better translation, 1984/2011 Niv?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Ready to Harvest
Member
Unfortunately, the 2011 has introduced some certainly unoriginal readings into the text. Example is Mark 1:41. NIV1984 says "Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" NIV2011 says "Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
The latter reading is only from Codex Bezae. It's the only Greek ms that supports the reading. And unfortunately, Beza back-translates it form the Latin, (as it also does in several other places) all other Greek mss of Mark (hundreds) (such as: א A B C E F G K L W Δ Θ Π Σ 090 0130 0233 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 2427)
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have it right. NIV is a victim of overdoing "prefer the difficult reading"
It is good to prefer the harder reading, but only if the rest of the scriptures would seem to support it.
Yes, but not always, as I prefer the Nasv 1977 to the 1995 revision.
Most people would agree with me that the later revisions are better than their earlier editions.
It has a lot in common with the current NIV. ;-)Either way, I really like my 1984 NIV
You should get yourself a physical copy of the 2011. The improvements are good and necessary.
Too bad that many disagree with you on that though!
Another version better then its revision!Either way, I really like my 1984 NIV
I'll check that out, thank you!
Only the uninformed.
So you like the KJV feel of the older NASB.
And for some reason you like the 84 edition of the NIV instead of it's much improved 2011 counterpart.
What other revisions of other translations do rate higher than their successors in your opinion?
Or is it just those two?
If it is just those two than you have to agree with my earlier proposition that revisions of translations are generally superior than their earlier form.
The older editions of the Esv, compared to 2016 revision
Like the SBC/Reformed/ and Lutherans?
Give examples. You have never mentioned this before.
All of the SBC? No, a few isolated individuals.
LifeWay Christian Resources sells the NIV and of course has not denounced it. LWCR is under the authority of the SBC.
Reformed? What about D.A. Carson, probably the best known N.T. scholar/preacher and author.
Lutherans? They are a mixed bag. Many are liberal and too close to Roman Catholicism for my taste.
WELS is biblically conservative and has endorsed the NIV and use it rather than any other Bible translation in their hymnbooks.
WELS uses the NIV in their Northwwestern Publishing House.
Check Genesis 3:16
the SBC decided against it, as did the conservative Lutherans, and also did those who were against the Niv 2011 excessive gendering rendering issues!
I believe this resolution passed at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix, Arizona. According to this article the Executive Staff of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod cautioned against it. WELS, on the other hand, endorsed it. This article on WAPO mentions some opposition (I think mainly the SBC and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).