Featured Your favorite Bible Translation

You have already indicated that you prefer "brothers and sisters" instead of "brethren" or "brothers" in the text. The 2011 edition has "brothers and sisters" in all 151 or so places where the ESV only has it as an alternative in the footnotes.

The differences between the 84 and 11 are of this order.

84 : desire
11 : desires

84 : sheep pen
11 : sheepfold

84 : I go
11 : I am going

84 : declared
11 : replied

84 : put their faith in him
11 : believed in him

84 : Has any
11 : Have any

84 : reliable
11 : trustworthy

84 : I tell you the truth
11 : Very truly I tell you

84 : Feast
11 : festival

84 : child
11 : boy

84: Now, however
11 : but now

Sometimes the 84 has a comma, and the 2011 edition doesn't. Sometimes the 2011 has a dash --and the 84 does not have it.

I looked through the gospel of John. Many key verses remain as they are in the 84 edition such as :

1:1-3,13
3:6-10
5:21,22
8:53,54
9:32-41
10:17,18,27,29,30
11:51-53
14:6
15:8,9,11,12,17-19,21
16:24-30
17:5-22,24-26
19:6
20:16,26-29
21:24-25

Of course many other verses are unchanged in the 2011 edition in the gospel of John. Yet the above are fairly representative of significant passages that folks have memorized and treasured.

 

Lifeway owns the HCSB, so I sure it is some SBC thing to get pastors to use the version. No one else I know of besides baptists use it.

 

Sadly I don't know of much non-baptists using the HCSB either. It's sad because it is really good translation. Good balance between readability and accuracy...like the NIV2011.

 

It is a very good translation. Zondervan, Crossway, and Tyndel House seem to have superior marketing to Holman. Holman seems to be content with massive display space in Lifeway. But as far as online marketing, emails, mailers, etc.....they don't seem to be as aggressive. Which is sad. I have a new testament personal evangelism bible. I find it personally easier to read then the NIV84. I cannot compare to NIV2011. I have only cross referenced the NIV 2011. Never read a full chapter. I wish I had the HCSB study bible....but I don't need another bible. The wife would kill me if I bought another

 

I shouldn't say easier to read. That makes it sound like the NIV84 is hard to read, which I do not find it to be. The HCSB just has a beautiful, smooth flow to its reading. My favorite verse, Isaiah 41:13 is just beautiful in that translation. Many other verses have a ring to them that makes them easier to memorize, for me anyway.

 

Here is the same answer I gave 8 years ago.

Now here's a reason for you. My travel Bible in an ultracompact NIV. It is the smallest complete Bible that I own. It is an OK translation, but not my favorite. If I could print my own Bible, it would be a mix of tranlations. My personal preference would go like this:

The OT with the exception of the Psalms (or any OT song) in the Holman.
The psalms in the KJV.

The Gospels and Acts in the Holman. All of the epistles in the NASB and the Revelation in a parallel Holman/NASB.

Now do you think I can get the Lockman and B and H folks together to come up with this for me?

 

Interesting post, MNJacob.

I too am unaware of any effective means by which bible users can present ideas to those responsible for updating our various English versions.

 

In 2007 I sent in hundreds of suggestions for improving what was then called the TNIV. There was an open appeal to the public for feedback and I complied. I limited my suggestions to the NT. I sent in more suggestions than anyone else. I got a reward for my effort --a TNIV with no verse or chapter divisions. And the text wasn't divided into two columns --it was laid out like a normal book.

So the NIV team apparently is more open than a lot of other translations. Perhaps someone might know of some exceptions.

 

Rippon,

I'm new here, so forgive me if you have answered this before.

You seems to be up to speed on the NIV and other translations. Why does NIV 2011 draw so much heat from SBC and other on gender neutrality? Doesn't the NLT go further on gender neutrality? I don't see any group in force attacking it? What am I missing?

I don't own the NIV 2011. I prefer ESV and NASB. I do how ever use a devotional bible with the wife that is NLT. It seems very aggressive on gender neutrality and functional equivalency. Why the double standard vs the NIV2011? Just curious.

 

The NIV has been #1 for decades. People, especially those in the pro-ESV lobby have tried to bring down the big guy on the block (read world).

Actually the opposition to the 2011NIV is muted in comparison with the maelstum over the TNIV. The hostility now is nothing like it was against the TNIV from 2001-2110.

I am a big fan of the NLT but it does go further in using inclusive language. And that is not a bad thing. It does not mean it is liberal or feminist-driven or any other charge that the ESV lobby has thrown at the NIV in its various editions.

The NLT has stayed below the radar. Boycotts of the TNIV were in place at a number of bookstores in the past. But a lot of translations using more inclusive language were still sold in those places. It's a huge double-standard.

People cherry-pick what they want. They are very selective as to what is acceptable and what is not. It is really willful blindness.

There is indeed a lot of hyprocrisy going on. World magazine trashed the TNIV with no regard to ethical behavior. Then, because of advertising revenue their "principles" went out the door and they have had blurbs for the GWT which uses more inclusive language. It is disgusting and very non-Christian conduct.

I lost respect for that so-called Christian publication long ago.

 

1977 Nas
1984 Niv

Nas best formal version, and that Niv was best mediating one