Featured "Graduating" from the NIV

My wife and I have recently moved into a retirement community quite a distance from our previous church and are looking for a new church home.
We have sampled quite a few different churches over the past few months.
One of the common characteristics I've noted (besides being Baptist) is that they all preach from the ESV.
I'd suggest using the translation your pastor uses.

Among the popular translations, one is not particularly better than another; it's a matter of varying translation philosophies.
Familiarize yourself with the preface of a couple translations.

• Examine the Hebrew and Greek text they translated from.
• Look to see if the translators followed a particular line of translations or blazed a new path. For example, the ESV notes: "The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy..."
• Investigate the general translation philosophy. Have the translators moved beyond a formal word-for-word and rearranged the phrases and sentence structure to more clearly communicate the original message?
• Consider some peculiarities such as gender inclusiveness. Do they adjust the translation of the masculine pronoun when both genders are included?

​

I study on the computer and use multiple translations.
Digital study allows me to easily compare the translation with the original Hebrew or Greek text.
My personal preference is the NASB because it is the Bible "I grew up with".
I think you will find that if you are comfortable with the NIV, it will be the one you compare other translations to when you study.

Rob

 

The NIV changed between it's 1984 edition with it's 2011 version. It became more interpretations than translation.

 

Hey there Bro. 37818!! I C dat y'all wuz in the USAF! If U don't mind, what wuz/is your USAF job title?? From 1964-69 mine was that of ACFT (F-4C/RF4C) Electrical Systems repair "Person"!! Fm 1988-2005, I wus w/ the TN ANG (Rat cheer in Nashville!) mine was that of an "Avionics Guidance & Control" in what WUZ da 118th Airlift Wing ("brand new" C-130H ["Stretch"] edition). Soon after I retired in 2005, "They" (i.e., Dose POLLYticians "DEcided" 2 rip off the "Airflift" on the 118th's title. IOW, day dun did TOOK ALL of the 118th's C-130H's.....Now it's just the 118th WING! .... Of course U & I "KNOW" that politics had NOTHING to do w/that decision!!Z..;( ;(.....Any howl, we DID due our time & dats ALL dat matters! (PS: I extended my "Tour of duty" back in the 1960's. I'd volunteered 4 'Nam, but IF I wanted 2 go 2 "DeutschLAND," I'd haff 2 extend my AD days. I'd only been saved for abt a yr or so (23 Apr 1966!), sews I new going to (West) Germany must have been God's way of teaching me "SOMETHING!!" ..... It SHORE WUZ!! Although I wuz ONLY a baby Christian, God led me to a very small Baptist "MISSION." What I learned (oft times it was THE HARD Way!!) there set me straight in many ways! The mission was called LANDSTUHL (Where the US ARMY has its BIG MEDICAL center....Just a few "Clicks" fm Ramstein AFB)....BTW, Ramstein was once a NAZI "Luftwaffe base! Good ole H Goring (A Hitler's NAZI AF Chief) planned 4 RAB to be just off their Autobahn (Which gave 5-star Gen Eisenhower the "inspiration 4 our INTERSTATE's!!) E-12 (ran E-W thru MANY US (or NAZI in WW2) military bases). I remember seeing that old acft "ramp" which led fm RAB 2 Autobahn E-12. That wuz ole H Goring's "idea": Have the NAZI AFB's near the autobahn's so they cud take off & land using the A B's rather than having 2 build the bases' own runways!! Yeah, HG may have been on the wrong side in WW2, but he did have a good idea for constructing their Luftwaffe's air bases. 2 bad that the USAF didn't try that though: Think of all the $$$ the US could have saved!! U put the USAF bases right next 2 our Interstates!! A Hitler & Co...may have been (& most likely were) insane, (NOT that any of OUR politicians AREN'T ....!). Save the US taxpayers MONEY??!! Y that's UNamercan!! ....!!

 

You/me due think alike!! The church of which they've let me in to (www.lighthousenashville.org) uses the ESV as well. Personally, I prefer the NLT, but both are (2 me anyway) much alike. Don Moen had a song out yrs ago: "God IS Good all the time" Our Father IS GOOD (HE saved US...NOT the other way around!!). Personally, God has not called me 2 Preach, BUT He has called me to teach. 4 sum yrs (1976 2 1993) I taught HS @ the now defunct Bible Baptist Academy & part-time @ my alma mater Clarksville (TN) Baptist College. I primarily taught history (gut an MA in HISTORY fm Austin Peay State Univ in 1981). Many people think of History as just a bunch of names & dates...& all that kind of stuff. 2 ME, I think HISZTORY iS "HIS"(God's) "STORY"! viz., "If we don't no from whence we came .....Howl in the WORLD will we no where we R going??!!" God's WORD has "Historical Books" in the OT. ..... Maybe HE was/is trying 2 tell us SOMETHING!!??!! Luv y'all w/the "LOVE of OUR Father!!

 

@Paul from Antioch,
Active duty from '66 to '70. The Job was aircraft fuel system maintainance mechanic.

Back then my main Bible study tools were KJ Vs. Scofield Reference Bibles. Strong 's Exhaustive Concordance. And a 7 volume Adam's Clark's commentary. A Nestle Greek New Testament. A Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

 

KJV, RV, RSV, ESV.

KJV, ASV, NASB, NASB95.

 

KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV.

KJV, ASV, NASB.

NIV

 

What set me against the 1978 NIV started with how Acts 2:38 was translated, . . . so that your sins may be forgiven.

 

One verse turn offs.


In with the NASB, John 1:18, . . . only begotten God . . . . [ Re: the NWT ]

 

The 2011 NIV has translated the text.

Act 2:38 ... for the forgiveness of your sins.

 

Even modern Greek scholars are in disagreement as to how that verse should be translated. The following from the NET bible explains why this issue arises:
The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenē theo, "the only God") versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenē huio, "the only son") is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the MSS, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra; thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of MSS, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ À1,13 œ lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ã75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ã66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participleὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. NET

 

The Zondervan copyright holders made that correction in their 1984 edition.