How did you select the Bible you use?

Hey, if he's not gooing to toot his own horn I doubt anyone else will do it.

 

The dynamic equivalence method of translation tries to get the thought of the original writers without being as much a word-for-word translation as the KJVs and the NASBs. Of course we all know there's no way to achieve 100% accuracy in a literal translation. In translating from one language into another, there has to be a little dynamic equivalence used in order for the translation to make sense to its target market.

What's all the fuss about my preferences? Am I not as entitled to my preferences as anyone else here?

And as for those who like to lebel the NIV as something other than a dynamic equivalence translation, here's what the preface to the NIV has to say:

 

Well,in this thread alone Thomas 15,Franklinmonroe and TCGreek have all endorsed some views I have expressed.Others are welcome to join the bandwagon.

 

Again,no mention whatsoever of dynamic-equivalence.

 

What! No trinity?

Look for the new Jim's version to include the missed trinity........I could make a fortune and maybe retire.

Cheers,

Jim

 

And your point is ...what?

 

It was given to me as a gift in 1945.

Cheers,

Jim

 

We've strayed way way off course.... but I might as well jump on the bandwagon too. The TNiv 'boycott', fuss, uproar, etc etc etc is actually what prompted me to buy one. I can't remember where I heard the quote (maybe a movie) but it was once said 'Even bad publicity is publicity'.
There are tons of translations that I have no desire to own, maybe someone should start fussing about the translations lagging behind so the sales will pick up.:tongue3:

 

Keith M,

I trust the judgment of those who are in the translation business. No serious scholar or translator has listed the NIV as a dynamic equivalence translation.

The T/NIV is more on the formal side than on the dynamic equivalence.

 

Thermodynamics, supposedly its to 'gender inclusive'. The reality is it is no worse than the rest of them. I can't remember exactly where they are but there are a couple of verses that I didn't like the translation of, but that can be said of any translation and I'm not the 'translation authority' anyway. I read a few books in the New Testament and honestly cant see what the ruckus was about. I know this borders on conspiracy theory but I have wondered if it wasn't a marketing ploy for the competing versions that came out/were about to come out around the same time.

 

TC, no offense, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. Ever since the NIV first came out it has been hailed as a DE translation. Ryken calls it a DE translation in his book (pp. 54, 59, etc.) to give just one scholar.

The intro to the 1983 edition I have says that the translators "have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the Bible demands frequent modificaiotns in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." This is close to being a definition of dynamic equivalence. If you want me to I can take you through a chapter of the NIV and show you step by step how it is a DE translation.

 

When I have a question about what the Bible is teaching, the first thing I do is reach for my NIV to see what it says. No question that it is dynamic equivalent; I like that. Word for word can be very wrong if we don't understand the language and its use at that time period.

I think about how much English has changed in my short lifetime, not even thinking about how we used English in England, and how the same word in America had totally different meanings.

Cheers,

Jim

 

John of Japan, no offense, but Ryken is no authority on Bible translation.

He has an ESV-agenda.

 

Many other scholars have said the NIV is DE. In fact, I'd be interested if you've come across a scholar who says it's not!

 

In The NIV:The Making Of A Contemporary Translation with Kenneth Barker as Editor it does not ever say that the NIV is a dynamic-equivalent translation.

In So Many Versions?by Sakae Kubo &Walter Specht they devote nine pages to the NIV.Not once do they call it a DE.

 

I have a KJV, two NKJV study bibles, one is a life application and one is a John MacAurthur Study Bible, I have a NIV, and I just recently got a NLT bible to teach out of. I teach grades 7-12 Sunday School and the NLT put things into a language that they can understand. I realize that the NLT is not a literal translation but when trying to talk to Youth sometimes literal is not always best it goes over there heads. When studying I use all my resorces but when teaching I like the NLT.

 

I recently bought an NLT Go Deeper Study Bible (was actually seriously considering the new NLT Study Bible) and stumbled across this version instead.
I really like it - not just for personal devotions, but for more intensive study. I frankly wanted something easier to read and in everyday English so I could understand what God was saying to me - I'm being ambitious this year as I would really like to get through my Bible in one year. I have lots of other translations, but this one seems to 'speak' to me. Lots of white space for notes (bit larger bible, but that's OK and large print - easy on the eyes!). I'm especially enjoying getting into studying more of the characteristics/qualities of God rather than a traditional study - full of historical facts/notes/overview of the period, etc. I'm also eagerly awaiting the new ISV translation due out this spring. I understand it's going to be a fantastic translation and want to check that one out too. I have many other translations - including a 125 yr. old KJV passed down to me, my 71 NASB, Living Bible, JP Phillips, NIV, RSV. Each version has something unique to say.