Featured NIV 2011 edition

Each translation has strengths and weaknesses.

I never have been a fan of the NIV but have been using it a lot these past few weeks.

In Sunday morning bible study I've been wrapping up Genesis with the Joseph story.
And lately our sermons have been in the Psalms (today's Mother's day sermon was Psalm 23).

MY OPINION - the NIV translates narrative and the poetry genrea very well, much better than the very literal versions.

Of course I enjoy looking for the structure of passages so I don't neglect the literal translations but certainly the NIV has its place in the study, the understanding and the communication of scripture.

Rob

 

A lot depends if you are into gender Inclusive language, as the Niv 2011 was basically the Tniv 20o5 edition repackaged!

I would stick to the 1984 version myself!

Alaso, check out the versions/bible board here, as some spirited give and take on this very issue!

 

First, as to the gender issue and the NIV2011, I see this as a non-issue. It is my understanding that in the Greek the default gender is male, while in modern English it is neutral. So for example if we were to say "take this book to them" in english (where the them might be either male or female), the Greek would still say "take this book to him." Because of this it is my belief that the gender neutral of the NIV2011 is more in keeping with the intent of the original Greek than a non-neutral translation.

Because of all the hype, many people believe that the NIV2011 has rendered God an "it" rather than a "him" this is just not true! Where a clear gender is in context it is used.

After spending a little time with it, I have become convinced that the NIV2011 is the best, most insightful and most accurate English translation we have avaliable.

 

Hear, hear everyone!

 

So Rippon...

NIV1984
TNIV

or

NIV2011

?

 

There are some gives and takes with reference to the TNIV and 2011 NIV. I think there are some improvements in the newer model;but I like the TNIV slightly more.

 

The NIV11 is a solid translation and a quality update to the NIV84.

imho, the gender neutral stuff is overblown in this translation. Though there were some unnecessary changes in the interim TNIV, the adjustments made in NIV11 are good ones.

Though I don't use the NIV for preaching or teaching, I will keep it close for reference.

 

Can you explain these give and takes?

 

Okay, i am just a simple lay person, can you please explain why you dont use it for preaching teaching, but you do use it for reference?

 

No lofty academic reason, I just prefer the HCSB for those. I'll refer to from time to time. Usually it is good practice to have a chief translation and stick to it.

 

I am really a bit confused by folks who would not want the most accurate and literal translation available.

None of the versions mentioned on this tread acknowledge that as a specific goal.

Rather, they conform to readability or some other norm and at that point depart from accuracy and literal rendering.

I am so thankful the scribes didn't rely upon the same thinking when making copies of the Scriptures - we wouldn't have anything relatively close to reliable if they did.

To that end there is only ONE version that has been held by the vast majority of scholars as being the most literal and accurate to date.

That is the NASB.

It isn't as easy to read as some others, and isn't perhaps as cuddly and friendly to the ears as some desire, and it isn't as readily available, but then I can present the truth of the Scriptures without reservation and without question to folks when using the NASB.

 

There is really a big difference between a scribe making a copy and a translator creating a translation.

When you copy a manuscript you strive for word for word and letter for letter faithfulness to the original. You don't have to make any judgments or give any thought to "what is the best way to copy this letter?"

You can't do the same when making a translation, you must make judgments. The NASB does it and so do all the other translations. There is not a single English word for every single Greek word, sometimes you have to pick a phrase to make it work.

The most accurate translation by the standard you are using would be a lexicon.

 

that is why we need to use 2 main versions for bible reading/studying...

Formal/literal ones like Nasb/Nkjv, while for reading purposes those like esv/HCSB/NIV!

 

Actually, wouldn't it be an Interlinear?

 

Literal doesn't mean accurate.

There is an impossibility with looking for the most literal translation. Word orders, idioms, theological language all go into crafting a translation. Any translator or scholar worth their salt will tell you translation is an art, not a science.

In what regard? Copying isn't translating. If you don't differentiate between the two you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of translation. The challenge of translation is taking an ancient language of an entirely different type and era and making it accessible linguistically, theologically, & for readability.

This task is even more complicated when considering English, a non-inflected language, to Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek which are inflected languages.

I respectfully, but completely, disagree with this assessment of English translations. There are places where the NASB/U is admittedly less literal than other translations. Not that being literal is the only mark a translation should strive to meet.

And I have no reservations in using the HCSB, NIV84 or 11, NET, ESV, NKJV, KJV, RSV, NASU, etc etc etc.

 

would say that the mor eliteral/formal translations such as Nasb/Nkjv/Kjv do indeed reflect what the originals were written to say to us, but would also say that at times there are passages where easier to get the gist from say the HCSB/Niv versions due to being so literal!

For example, like to read some of the OT passages in say Niv/Hcsb, inorder to have a smoother reading in some areas!

 

Would you then hold to the lesser more readable or to the more literal as reliable?

For instance, say the lessor presented John 3:16 as Christ as the one and only Son, yet we know the Scriptures teach that all believers are the children of God.

Would you then preach and teach Christ was one of many Son's making humankind raised to the level of Christ?

Or would you teach that believers are in fact not God's children for the readability versions do state that position when one reads John 3:16 as they rendered it?

Why not put emphasis upon that which is readable, yet highly accurate?

One that presents the truth of John 3:16 (in Christ being God's one and only uniquely born son) seems far more worthy and reliable with less divisive "my thinking" view opportunities than those who favor readability out of ear pleasure.

 

"Actually, wouldn't it be an Interlinear?"

You are right, I stand corrected.

 

Oh, I know all that.

And it is assured that each rendering of a translation that is accurate does take all those items into consideration.

But, the bottom line is the literalness of the translation verses the readability desires of the translators.

There is general agreement that the more "readable" the less literal and generally the more view biased a translation.

I have asked others to point to such a place and have actually found to this date not one area were the NASB is less literal than some other version.

When that issue has been raised, it seems to be over some matter from which the view one holds on a certain doctrinal issue is the determiner of what is accurate and literal. Those that argue in agreement with a certain translation's readability view will consider that translation more literal.

However, when comparison to original work and in consideration of all aspects from above, the NASB does not fail in any area - at least not that I have been shown.

Perhaps there is some area, my own work is not without question(s) and my own judgment has long ago grown dull.

If in visiting a home in which I neglected to bring my Bible, and I ask if they had one that we could use, I would have no problem declaring the Scriptures and praising the mercy of God upon any who might through that word be brought to belief in Christ.