Featured Defense of the NIV

Oh,by the way,here are some of his numerical conclusions. Remember,the lower the number is the greater its affinity with the original.(As per David Bell).

ASV : 51
NASB : 55
KJV : 57
RSV : 62
NJB : 88
NEB : 93
TEV : 116
MSG : 129

At the time that David Bell had conducted his study he could have chosen not to use the KJV,RSV,NEB and TEV. Instead, he should have included The NRSV,REB,CEV and NLT.

 

Yeah, well that's interesting and all that and you made me dig up Bell's thesis again and look at it, but it's not the OP. More connected to the OP is the fact that with all of his figuring, Bell clearly put the NIV in the DE class.

"A few years after the Living Bible, the New International Version appeared (NT 1973; OT 1978). Under the banner of dynamic equivalence, it sought to produce a much more conservative translation than TEV" (Bell, p. 55).

"The result was a ​

dynamic equivalent version..." (ibid, 105).

​

 

He was the OT editor, as with the NKJV, which is why both versions say they are done with optimal equivalence. He was the scholar who developed the theoretical background for the translation method for both versions.

 

"Clearly" is something that he did not establish. And maybe you are ignoring all that I posed in #99 and #100 posts.

On a chart David Bell had some so-called "traditional versions" on the left and the "modern versions" on the right. The NIV was smack-dab next to the HCSB (in that his own figures placed each within 2 and a half points distance). The NIV was virtually on a precipice dangling between the traditional and modern versions.

In other words his own research placed the HCSB and NIV on the same turf. The NJB was the more likely candidate to be placed in the modern version category.

​

Well he contradicts himself. And besides, the NIV has never advertised itself as a dynamic equivalence version --just look at the Preface for instance. Dr. Nida (the father of the term)never even mentioned the NIV as being in the dynamic equivalence arena.​

 

I thought the NKJV was advertised as using a "complete equivalence" philosophy. Anyway, comparing the NKJV and the HSCB, one can easily see they employed different models of translation.

 

How would you define the niv?

NOT in the formal camp, nor in paraphrase one, nor optimal camp, so what is left other than DE?
Would yoyu see it about same as he HCSB, a "mediating" translation?

 

It follows the same ground as the HCSB even though the NIV family stated far earlier. But yes, it is a mediating version as much as the HCSB,NAB and NET.

 

As I said in post#85 of the thread from four years ago you are trying to resurrect,

 

Yes, I am as I already pointed out to you, because they do not address the OP. And you are ignoring all of my points in the area of textual criticism, as you have a right to do though they do address the OP.

And you know this how? Have you read all of his books and his articles in The Bible Translator journal and elsewhere?

 

There is a handy search engine called Google. Have you heard of it? I can search for information on a given subject without even owning or borrowing a book. I looked up Eugene Nida and the NIV and came up with nothing. after going through 15 pages. He apparently said nothing about the NIV and it's alleged dynamic equivalence. Of course my search wasn't exhastive;but it was extensive. Even Philip Stine had nothing to say about the NIV and dynamic equivalenceafter a five page search. If you have come up with something that Nida said with respect to Nida calling the NIV a dynamic equivalence version;please share it with us.

 

In Dave Brunn's new book :One Bible,Many Versions,he states the following on page 69:

"The New International Version (NIV) is a special case and deserves to be mentioned separately. In most areas of translation,it appears that the NIV translators attempted to identify the fine line between what readers perceive to be a modified literal rendering and an idiomatic rendering. They apparently set this theoretical point as the center of their target range and worked outward in both directions,depending on the constraints of each passage."

In a footnote on the same page:

"It appears that the ideal target range of the HCSB and the NET are fairly close to that of the NIV."

 

Oh, well, 15 pages of Google--that settles it! :tongue3: But if you found nothing, then he said nothing positive about the NIV either, right?

Admittedly, he says nothing about the NIV in the books I have. But The Bible Translator is only on the Internet in jpeg form, not in anything searchable. So your Google search is hardly conclusive.

 

I said my search was not exhaustive. But after 15 pages I'd say my point was made.

For him to have something positive to say about any Bible translation it would most likely be among the functionally equivalent versions. Since the NIV is not in that exclusive realm --yes, he said nothing positive about the NIV.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think the NIV is a great version for home study. It makes points quite clear that are sometimes not apparent to me in the KJV. The reason I use the NKJV at church is that it is easier to follow along in Scripture reading. I plan on purchasing an ESV Bible in the near future. What does anyone think about that version for home study?

 

Actually, he said almost nothing either positive or negative in his writings about the plethora of English translations. When he illustrates a principle or technique it is almost always from a mission field translation. He wrote nothing to my knowledge comparing or contrasting or evaluating English versions. That just wasn't where his expertise was concentrated.

 

Rod Decker:

"I happen to believe that verbal inspiration is valid,but any such verbal construct relates only to the original text,not to a translation. To suggest as some have,that such a view of inspiration mandates a particular approach to translation is (I'll try to be "nice"!)foolishness."

In another place,at another time, he said:

"...the ESV is sometimes viewed as more accurate or more reliable due to its supposed use of formal equivalence. This has been argued to be more consistent with verbal inspiration --a conclusion which reflects very little understanding of either inspiration or translation."

 

I'm not an "NIV hater". I just don't think it's a good translation.

Don't get me wrong, if you were stranded on a desert island without a Bible and an NIV washed up on shore, then praise God, you've got a Bible.

But if you have a choice, why would you chose the NIV when you have much better translations to choose from?

 

Since he was instrumental in the methodology of the Good News Bible;I'm sure he must have written about that particular version at least.

 

On what basis is it not a good translation? What better translations are there in your view and why?

 

I much prefer the words of Moses, quoted by Matthew and Luke quoting Jesus: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Again, I much prefer the words of Agur: "5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

I submit that it is Decker who doesn't understand verbal inspiration. B. B. Warfield, famed Reformed theologian, wrote: "The Church, then, has held from the beginning that the Bible is the Word of God in such a sense that its words, though written by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them the marks of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words of God, the adequate expression of His mind an will. It has always recognized that this conception of co-authorship implies that the Spirit's superintendence extends to the choice of the words by the human authors (verbal inspiration)" (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 173).

If every word comes from God, then every word is important in translation.