Bible Translations

Uhoh! Get ready! Incoming!! :tonofbricks:


BTW, welcome!

 

You trust the internet on this matter? Really? From which website did you get your information?

There is absolutely zero evidence that the KJV is any more authoritative or superior. In actuality, though it was the best scholarship of the day and has served the Church well for hundreds of years, it is far from the best translation available today.

 

The TNIV and the NIV 2011 are dynamic translations. They are not paraphrases, not even close. They actually are even further from paraphrasing than the NLT (which, actually, is another great translation.)

 

Your pastor was right about what?

 

So they say. At all vents, they are too dynamic for my taste

In that case, I am relieved that I have not wasted my money on buying a copy.

Steve

 

Here's a chart that might be helpful

 

8,000 posts...Wow

No,they are not considered in the realm of dynamic-equivalency. They are in the mediating range. They join company with the HCSB,ISV,NET Bible and NAB (not NASB).

I realize that even some fans of the TNIV and 2011 NIV have called them dynamic --but they are mistaken.

 

I have outlined in the past what I think are more accurate placements. I won't itemize each and every one.And I'll add a few.

Starting on the left side of the ledger:

NASBU,ESV,NRSV,HCSB,ISV,2011 NIV,NAB,NET Bible, NJB,REB,NLTse,NIrV,GW,NCV,CEV,GNT,Phillips and LB.
The 2011 NIV is in that sweet spot between the NASBU on the left,and the NLTse on the right.

The tightest cluster involves the HCSB,ISV,2011NIV,NAB and NET Bible.

I think the old MLB and Norlie versions would fit around the NRSV and HCSB positions.

 

I use the NASB because it's more word for word, even at the cost - at times - of a smoother read.