A question for those who use the NIV

How about why some of us don't prefer the NIV, although we don't stand against it as such? Personally I think the dynamic equivalence translations are just a little too free in some of their phrasings.

I'm a NKJV man myself. In a nutshell the NKJV retains much of the majesty found in the KJVs while much of the language has been updated into a more modern form. I also use the NASB for its accuracy. I carry a KJV to church because that is what the preacher will be reading from, and I find it a little easier to follow along when reading the same translation used in the pulpit. Also, the KJV I carry to church has larger type than some of the other printed Bibles I have, so I find it a little easier to read. These days that helps a lot.

 

The "dynamic eqivalence" field is a large one . So when the NIV is lumped together with some very free versions -- that is not being accurate . The NIV and the improved NIV ( TNIV ) is on the conservative end of the playing field . It is closer to the ESV for instance than the NCV, CEV and GW . It is essentially literal for the most part . It's been called a mediating version by some in the know -- the balance point between more formal versions and functional equivalence type of translations . I like the NIV . I like the TNIV even more .

 

I generally use a KJV/NKJV, but my pastor uses the NIV. Sometimes, I carry a NIV to church. It does make it a little easier to follow along when scripture is being read.

 

Now here's a reason for you. My travel Bible in an ultracompact NIV. It is the smallest complete Bible that I own. It is an OK translation, but not my favorite. If I could print my own Bible, it would be a mix of tranlations. My personal preference would go like this:

The OT with the exception of the Psalms (or any OT song) in the Holman.
The psalms in the KJV.

The Gospels and Acts in the Holman. All of the epistles in the NASB and the Revelation in a parallel Holman/NASB.

Now do you think I can get the Lockman and B and H folks together to come up with this for me? :thumbs:

 

'Bout as likely as my hair growing back...

:laugh:

 

I too use the TNIV because it is a much better translation then the NIV. They are good translations that are accurate and user friendly, they rose to the top because of this reason

Why don't I use the KJV or NKJV

1. Poor manuscript choice on the part of the translators; although the KJV folks used the best they had

2. It is what about 30 years old....language has changed way too much for it to still be relevant, which I would argue it never was

3. It is a mess of a translation...too much of the KJV to be modern and just enough of the mistakes of the KJV to be useful

4. What majesty? The NKJV reads like a eighth grader giving a speech that he copied from the encyclopedia

 

Well, that's certainly one opinion. And you're entitled to have your own opinion.

 

The NASB is 36 years old
The NIV is 34 years old
The NKJV is 25 years old

If a Bible is irrelevant after 30 years, then are you suggesting the NASB and NIV are also irrelevant?

If 30 years is the baseline of language relevancy what do you believe you will be reading 24 years from now since the TNIV will have expired? Will you intend to unlearn all the scripture you've memorized in the TNIV in favor of the newer more relevant Bible?

 

If a person works only from English translations, that relevancy question is important. But if the person works also from the original language, then that is not much of an issue.

I love the NASB, but often I consult the NIV and the TNIV, which is a good improvement on the NIV. Also I use the ESV, although I am somewhat disappointed with it; I personally think it is overhyped.

It does not matter what translation a person uses, sensitivity to the contemporary language will always be paramount or communication would be impossible.

 

Every version in every language needs to be updated periodically . Martin Luther's version was updated something like half a dozen times or more in his lifetime alone .

 

What does this do for our KJVO brethren?

 

It must sadden them , or else look for a convenient excuse . Most American KJVO folks that I've met insist that other Christians from foreign lands should learn the old English of the KJV . Or , reluctantly suggest Luther's version as acceptable if the foreign folks in question know German . The issue is : Of what Luther version are you speaking ? There are multiples .

 

Amazes me on the hype introduced against the KJB "folks" for stickingmwith what's tried and true.

Isn't it sort of hypocritical to discredit the Elizabethan language all the while insisting upon the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

The solution is ability to expound on the word of God into the modern tongues of any language from a point in which clarity is easily accomplished from a suitable standpoint.

"Poor manuscript choices" ?:laugh: get real!

 

As a student preparing for the pastorate some years ago I studied the issue of translation for almost two year, looking into the Textus Receptus and Alexandria Text and related witnesses. But it was DA Carson's King James Version Debate that really helped me.

The point that stuck with me from that book is that God intends for his Word to be contemporary language, easily understood.

Now this brings us the idea of translation philosophies: formal vs. dynamic. Both have their pros and cons. By the way, their is no truly literal translation. That is a myth.

 

If by this you wish to imply that the same reverence that is given to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic must be given tot he Elizabethan preserved in the KJV, you are quite mistaken.

The Elizabethan tongue is not on the same level as the historica languages of the Bible. Far from it.

I say to the brother who wants to use the KJV use it, but do not force it upon me and create a doctrine out of it, namely, KJVO.

I love to regality of the KJV in some places, but that is an issue by itself.

 

Existence of the item is usually required for one to be reverent towards that item or items.

It most defintely IS in English.

Try and explain any portion of the original tongues to an English speaking person and then step back and say that it cannot be directly translated to our understanding in our language!raying:

Offering something useful is never forcing anything upon anyone.

To attempt to claim something to be as accurate or even better than that which is already accurate and better is hyperbole at its finest.

I agree that the notable excellence and magnificance of the KJB has never met its equal. Glad you agree.

 

The NASB was updated in 1995
The HCSB came out in 2000
The ESV came out in 2001 and I understand is being reviewed right now
The NLT was updated in 2004
The NIV was updated in 2005

The only people who don't seem to get that language changes are KJV only [personal attack snipped]
I won't unlearn anything, in fact I still quote passages of scripture from the KJV that I learned as a kid in Sunday School.

 

If is the KJV you are implying, then you have been your position known. Those who are of the same persuasion will sympathize with your position. But as for me and countless others, nothing can be further from the truth.

As far as accuracy is concern the KJV is not even in my top five of translations.

 

Language does change, but the root meanings are what any language is based upon.

[very severe attack on the Bible edited out along with attack on those who do not use a particular translation, Any other attacks like this will be brought before the board administrator for possible suspension. This is a warning to all who use this type of attack against the Bible.]