How did you select the Bible you use?

Nothing shocking here... I like the TNIV for the same reason...

Thank God for sending the Holy Spirit to convict, guide, and comfort!!

Praise God that people listen to the Holy Spirit to guide them in the word.

 

Amen brother! God is so incredibly GOOD! (and yes I'm yelling it!) :saint:

 

As a new believer, because I didn't know better, I used a Living Bible, which is a paraphrase, for a few months. Once I found out it was a paraphrase (I can't recall how I found out but I was not in a good church at the time), I got rid of it. I can't recall what I used next....then not much later, I used a NIV Study Bible and read through it in a year. The church I am in now uses the NASB and it's the pastor's favorite version. So around the time I joined or shortly after in late '92, I got an NASB.

Since then, I've used several versions at different points - NKJV, HCSB, NLT, and NET Bible. I have not explored some others such as the ESV and am not sure when as I am busy right now with the Bibles I have on hand. I also had a NSRV once and it reminded me a lot of the NASB. But the notes in it were liberal and seemed to come from Higher Criticism. It bothered me so much, I had to stop using it.

I take a NKJV to church because I like the notes in it (Nelson Study Bible), and at home mainly use a NASB Thompson Chain for bible study, but I also have a NASB95. I wish the NASB95 came in a Thompson Chain, but it doesn't.

I have a NKJV on my desk to look up stuff, and near my desk, a NET Bible which I might use to look up for the notes. However, since the NET Bible is online, I tend to that instead. For awhile, I had a HCSB Illustrated Bible - the photos were really neat but I did not like the way the language read as much as the NASB.

I also use Bible Gateway and when I look up passages, often look them up in several versions just for comparison sake. I used to have a parallel Bible which allowed me to compare versions, but it weighed a ton!

I also have a personal size NKJV Thompson Chain now.

From what I have, I prefer the NASB translation but I like the NKJV study Bibles better.

I think it's good to use several versions/translations and try them out. However, I know I don't like The Message or loose translations like the New Century Version (I think that's what it was called), which I tried once.

 

You forgot an option, TCGreek. The third option is to dismiss the TNIV as well as the NIV because they're dynamic equivalence translations and the reader prefers more literal translations. Rippon, IMHO, has "nailed" nothing but his own opinions and presented those opinions as if they were fact.

 

Nope - never figured that one out. But as the hair has gotten thinner and thinner over the years, I've decided each hair is attached to brain cells that fall out too. That's why my rememberer doesn't work too well sometimes.

:laugh:

 

WHICH KJV do you use, Ehud?

 

Once again Keith is wrongly asserting that the NIV is a dynamic-equivalence version.And once again he is still wrong.The NIV/TNIV is virtually the kissing cousin of the CSB.The CSB cannot be classified as dynamic-equivalent any more than the TNIV.Even the NASBU uses dynamic-equivalence at times -- the TNIV does it more often.But the TNIV is at the tipping popint between the more formally-equivalent on one side and the more functionally-equivalent versions on the other.It leans a bit more toward formal correspondence than does the NIV.

The TNIV,NET Bible,ISV and CSB are all in that mediating position -- with ever so slight variations.Even the ESV is not soo different from the TNIV in its real translatintg philosophy (despite its marketing hype).

You see folks,Keith needs to actually own and study on his own what the TNIV is all about without resorting to mischaracterizations.He says one thing about the supposed fact that he never attacks "valid versions" and then has to have his comments deleted when he flippantly states thart the TNIV needs to be trashed.However,he can't have it both ways.That's why though he relishes his non-KJVO stance he actually employs some of their non-logic at times.

 

"The reader" is not a singular individual.Readers of English Bibles constitute a vast assortment of people.If anything, readers of English Bibles tend to prefer a more functional type of translation.The mounting popularity of the NLTse is a testimony of that fact.It has moved more in the direction of the formally-equivalent method of translation while remaining in the dynamic camp.Back to the drawing board you will have to go again Keith.Facts are not in your favor.

 

How right you are Rippon.

You nailed it again Rip!

Oh that's so true.

Keith,can you bring yourself to say that the TNIV is the Word of God?

 

Now thats a unique post - a poster quoting and praising his own post?!?!?

 

If you favor "dismissing the NIV/TNIV" then you are in effect saying that they do not measure-up in being valid versions of Scripture.If indeed that is the case you are treading on dangerous ground.Not only would you be in violation of BB rules (and BB does rule!) but you would be in contradiction of your stated principles when debating KJVO proponents.Then,of course,the Lord would not be pleased with your position when He has provided the NIV/TNIV as a blessing to many.So you need to reconsider and repent.

 

What can I say?I appreciate my thoughts sometimes.I'm on vacation and feeling good.But I'll stop and let others praise me LOL!

 

The above was my post numbered 15.In response to it Keith M said :"Rippon,IMHO,has 'nailed' nothing but his own opinions and presented these opinions as if they were fact (sic)." Well,let's see about that.

Keith,when will you ever learn? Answer:It's up to him when he will acknowledge facts.

The NIV/TNIV can't be simply described as being dynamic-equivalent.Answer:That's true -- they can't with honesty.Do you honestly think Eugene Nida who invented the term for what is called the TEV would put the NIV/TNIV in that classification?!

The NIV/TNIV is at the midway point between the more formally-equivalent versions and the more functionally-equivalent versions.Answer:Of course they are.Who in their right mind would honestly put them in the thick of the dynamic-equivalent versions?

The TNIV ventures a bit more toward the fomally-equivalent side of the ledger than does the NIV.Answer:Of course it does.Only someone who has not taken the time to investigate for himself or is deliberately distorting the case will deny that.

If you want to talk about fully dynamic versions deal with real ones such as the TEV,CEV and NCV.Answer:Yes,those are legitimately dynamic and hence very different from that of the NIV/TNIV.

Even the NLTse is not as dynamic as Keith thinks the NIV is.Answer:Apparently so.Keith thinks the NIV/TNIV is a prime representative of the dynamic-equivalent model.However,even the NLTse is not as dynamic as he suspects -- again because he has noty done any personal investigation and would rather rely on his personal biases.

About the so-called gender-inclusive issue involving the TNIV-- he needs to review past threads on the subject.Answer:Very true.Keith needs to be factually informed so that he will not continue to spread misinformation.

The ESV,CSB,NLTse and NET Bible (among others) all use generic language when warranted.Answer:Of course they do.

The differences between these veersions and the TNIV are marginal and not a difference in kind but degree.Answer:This is very true.Again,Keith has to take the time and do research on his own before continuing to slander the TNIV in this respect.In short -- he has to eat some humble pie.

The TNIV is not some alien creature which is vastly different than his favorite versions.To believe that is just to perpetuate his ill-informed understanding.Answer:I'm afraid that is exactly the case.

 

For many years I used the NIV. About 2 years ago I switched to the NKJV. I still refer to the NIV and also the NASB95. Like franklinmore, I have almost 100 Bibles but most of them do not get read.

I have said this before and will repeat it again, I do not understand the excitement over the ESV. Yes, it is a good version but no better than all of the others currently available today. The ESV is, a revision of the RSV, not a new translation. We hear (and I don't meant to offend anyone) that it is a literal translation. A better description would be a formal translation as a true literal work would make little sense in English.

Another thought I have is that the more I look into the translation issues and hot topics, the more I appreciate the NIV. While the NIV does not have the old time feel of the KJV family of translations, it is very accurate. In some places more accurate than the KJV.

In his introduction to his 4 volume commentary on Romans, Donald G. Barnhouse describes his busy schedule on the speaking tour circuit. He talks about preparing sermons and working on commentaries on the road with a limited number of dictionaries and lexicons (his travel library) and a small number of (20 or so) translations of the Bible.

 

There is more hype about the ESV than most of the others combined.The TNIV has little to no promotion.Word-of-moth alone is what has pushed it.The boycotts certainly didn't help.

The fascination with the ESV is puzzling.It's a lightly warmed over RSV with awkward English being defined as literary elegance.It's stated translation philosophy is at odds with the actual text. Also,there are many examples wherein functional equivalence has been employed.

The NIV translators were the cream of the crop.

His eventual successor (after an interim pastor of a few years) was James M.Boice. Dr. Boice used the NIV as his primary English translation for decades in all his works -- so have many other conservative authors/scholars.

 

Rippon comes out of the closet!!

Rippon is TNIVO!!!:smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

 

Keith M, I agree with Rippon, the NLTse and TNIV are not as dynamic as you think-if you think what I think you think. Also, to the ESV fans, it is more dynamic than they think. Actually, dynamic should be called mediating, but I'm not the first to point that out.

I have and read every translation that I comment on. I'm not trained in greek but I do take the time to look up words and verses in "Word Pictures...", Vincents, NICNT, NIDNTT and so forth. The NIV is amazingly clear and percise. It is getting bad press that it doesn't deserve.

Tom

 

I basically with Tom and Rip on this. I was not impressed with the ESV when I read the through its' NT. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised by the TNIV. I'm not a big fan of the NIV, but it is pretty close to the Greek in most of those places that I checked it.

 

Yeah,that's why I have had numerous threads favoring the MLB,REB,NLTse,NJB,Norlie's,NAB,Weymouth,NIrV etc.:laugh:

 

Keith M,

What is a dynamic equivalent version of the Bible? Maybe we need to start there.