Featured Is it time to "update" the NIV?

Exactly wrong.

 

"I think it's fair to say that in terms of translation philosophy, the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB." Rod Decker

 

You don't believe Zondervan used to say it was a dynamic equivalent translation? Oh if I knew the link in the wayback machine I would pull it out for you.

 

I know I read it was so. Back then they were proud it was dynamic equivalent. They were the ones who created the term.

 

And pretending the jerusalem bible and new english bibles are acceptable versions could be as well. The NIV is nowhere close to an excellent version. It can use improvement. You can deny the NIV is a dynamic equivalent version all you want, but its in print in the old days. Just because you didn't see it doesn't make it not true. Others of us saw it. In print. They were once very proud of the term dynamic equivalence

 

Was Mr. Decker paid by the NIV or the ESV? The Old RSV would be closer to the NASB than the NIV. So then would the ESV. It's not alright for "christian advertising" to tell fibs to sell books. Although they think it is.

 

KJV and William Tyndales New Testaments mostly.

 

Dr. Eugene Nida created the term which he subsequently changed to Functional Equivalence because people misunderstood the term Dynamic Equivalence.

 

I referenced the NJB and REB. You need to get it straight. And those two are indeed acceptable Bible translations:; not as good as the NIV, but acceptable. I have made threads on both noting their strengths and weaknesses.

 

The primary person connected with the NIV who calls it a dynamic version is Bill Mounce.

 

He was not paid by anyone or any organization. He was a fine Christian scholar who wrote independently.

 

Let's not heap abuse on Crossway.

 

And I understand that chosen reading is in error. Noting Judas took part in our Lord's institution of His rememberence Luke 22:19-21 before Jesus sent Judas out, John 13:26-30.

 

Usually the Nas and the Esv!

 

It is not in the formal camp, from the get go!

 

They prefer the term "mediating", but os still more of as dynamic translation!

 

No, by the Niv translators themselves!

 

Indeed, as they distanced themselves from being in the word for word formal and more into thought for thought camp!

 

Thought for thought, not a word for word translation, per them!