Featured The NIV defended

I read the book of Galatians campletely through this morning in the NLTse and was refreshed with how clear and accurate it is. More folks need to examine this fine translation for themselves.

 

I got my now 12 year old son a NTT 2 edition in leather, and find myself reading it more than he does!

 

I have expressed my opinion about the NIV on previous occasions. I don't like it. I believe words are important. Apparently those who performed the "dynamic equivalence" interpretation of Scripture presented have a different opinion. So be it, they are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

I rarely post on this Forum and did so this time just to stir the pot a little. What is surprising is the rancor by some against those who express a negative opinion about the NIV. I can understand this attitude when it comes to differences in theological views but not over a particular version of the Bible!

 

You are confusing dynamic equivalence with paraphrases.

That's very apparent.

Get this straight. You deny that the NIV and HCSB are indeed Bibles. I insist the opposite on reasonable grounds. Yet you view me as extremist and rancorous.

You are out there in NeverNeverLand.

 

Words ARE important, but it is important that the words are clear to the reader. For some reason we don't have a problem with using a simple translation to teach the Bible to a ten-year-old, but we do with using a simple translation to teach the Bible to an adult that has a ten-year-old's reading comprehension. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

Perhaps it is because some folks choose to obfuscate instead of letting words speak plainly!

 

Let me set you straight because your inconsistency is glaring.

You seeming know no distinction between a paraphrase and a dynamic equivalency version.

You deny that that the HCSB and NIV are Bibles. That means you think they aren't the Word of God.

Words do mean specific things. But you play with them like silly putty.

 

Rippon before you try to set anyone else straight you must get the log out of your eyes!:laugh::laugh:

 

Address my points line-by-line. Don't weasel out.

 

One man's "plainness" is another man's babble.

 

OldRegular: You have never answered me point-by-point. You're just content to do some drive-by fire. But I really would like to know what other English Bible versions you would consider to be paraphrases. Of course you can opt out by saying that you really don't know.

 

I have noticed that in some.:thumbs: One reason I don't like the NIV!:laugh:

 

You may laugh it off, but it is in reality quite sad that there are many who are condemned as "lesser Christians" simply because they cannot read KJV English. (I am NOT saying that you do this, but some do.) I work with many such people.

 

Best bible would be one that is accurate and reliable, but also in a version that you can read and understand!

 

Clarity of expression is an important factor in accuracy.

 

Until recently, I used to be one of those individuals who would avoid utilizing any translation that was not "literal" enough for me.

However, I have come to learn the value of translations such as the HCSB, NIV, and NLT.

This is especially been brought home to me as i step up my efforts at evangelism.

To an adult who has never read the Bible, translations such as the NASB, ESV, and NKJV are simply too difficult to comprehend at times.

I have found this to be true time and time again, and have now found the HCSB, NIV, and NLT invaluable for proclaiming the gospel.

 

Exactly.:thumbs:

 

:thumbsup:

 

AMEN to all you have said. You are in the real world. If you want to reach men who are largely unchurched in a mission or jail environment I think the NLTse is top of the line!

 

the NLT had a bad reputation with me in the past, simply because i was only familiar with the first edition (1996).

however, i find the second edition of the NLT to be a vast improvement!

as for the NIV, i allowed myself to be influenced by all the bad press generated toward NIV84, TNIV, and NIV11.

once i began to investigate the NIV for myself, i discovered it was, indeed, accurate (despite being less literal).

the HCSB sounded strange to my ears at first, but again, i cannot dispute it's accuracy. it's simply a little more literal than the NIV, i think.

in any case, thank you for affirming and validating my current views on Bible versions/translations.