Bible Translation

Don't you just hate it when these things happen?

 

So you have decided to join the Mitchell Club.Every translation is a rendering S.O.You guys are coming up with new material. You maintain that the NIV is not a translation!I wonder what the NIV translators would think of that absurdity?

Okay,that's step number one.Step # 2 would be to actually read it.:thumbs:

 

The NIV is properly designated as a translation. No one has to like any particular translation or the translation style of any version, from the "as nearly 'literal' as possible", such as the YLT; 'Formal equivalence, such as the KJV, Dynamic equivalence, such as the NIV; "Optimal Equivalence" such as the self-proclamation of the HCSB; extremely free translations into contemporary language such as the MSG, for it to be designated as a translation.

BTW, properly, only one of the above versions is a complete translation. Which one actually is, might surprise you.

The one requirement is that a version be a "translated" (as opposed to paraphrased, or 'continued' from an existing translation) version, else one is misusing the language, and definitions of "translation" and "commentary". In fact, the only 'major' version, in English, that I would consider that is a partial 'commentary' is the AMP, for it, in fact, does at times, give some commentary, right in the verses.

This "commentary" is not a characteristic of any of the other versions, I have listed. The TYN was, in fact, a translation, and the initial translation into early "Modern English", from the Greek (and the work he did on the OT from the Hebrew, is found in the COV). The MSG is in fact, a translation.

Why is the MSG, of all things, a translation? Becuse the translator did not use any other English version in any of the translation, but translated directly from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into very contemporary English.
TheKJV, YLT, NIV, AMP, COV, and HCSB are actually all only partial translations, for the very simple fact that all of them to one degree or another, have still incorporated some of Tyndale's initial translation in the version.

Like the NIV or dislike the NIV, as one chooses. I guess I would definitely be included, basically, among the 'dislikers' personally, as I do not generally prefer it very much at all, never 'carrying' one, and only rarely am seen citing or referring to it, although I will sometimes cite it, just as any other version, for a good rendering, when it is approptriate. But my personal distaste for that particular version, and the translation style, in no way change the fact that the NIV is a translation.

Ed

 

Are you referring to some posts or computer glitches? :smilewinkgrin:

Ed

 

FTR, I usually use an edition of the NKJV. Biggest reasons were cost, textual basis, and the clarity and readability of the print, including the size of the print, a major factor, at the time I purchased it, since I could read it without glasses. Today, that is not so important, as I have to have glasses to read any normal size print. In fact, the print would probably have to be at least this large, today, for me not to have to use glasses, to read it. That size or perhaps even larger print, would be very impractical, I would say.

Ed

 

Thats not big enough for me to read, without my glasses. This is just barely, if I squint a little. :laugh:

A bible with this size print, would have to have around 20,000 pages.

 

Ed,the NIV is not a strictly dynamic equivalent translation.Eugene Nida's dynamic (or functionally equivalent) model is not evidenced in the NIV.The TEV,NCV and CEV are outright dynamic.The NLTse is lightly dynamic in comparison with the last three.

People are so used to calling the NIV "dynamic" that they haven't done the legwork to determine that for themselves.It's a blend of the functional and formal -- but with a distinct tilt toward the latter.Actually the NIV (and why speak of it when the TNIV has been around for the better part of a decade in circulation?) is modified literal or "essentially literal".I know know that the ESV promotes itself as that but the TNIV would qualify as well.

I am tired of the NIV/TNIV bashing -- and the lumping of the same with the CEV,NCV and TEV ( some put it in the same category as The Message!)

 

I use the KJV, NIV, NLT, NASB, NET and all the others on e-sword.

But Lately I have been using my TNIV more.

 

I primarily use a NASB and NKJV. I also have a NET Bible that I use mainly for its grammatical notes.

I like the NASB updated slightly better than the NKJV but the NKJV has more options for various types of study bibles. I have a Baptist Study Bible, Nelson Study Bible, and Chronological Bible in the NKJV (they don't come in a NASB).

I used an NIV study bible as a new believer for a long time but don't really like the NIV translations that much ever since in my Hermeneutics class, the prof showed us a passage in Judges in the NIV that had left out something important that is in other translations (I'd have to look to find it now).

The pew Bible at church and the one the pastor uses is a NASB. The one I usually use at home to prepare for church lessons is a NASB Thompson Chain. The one on my desk is the NKJV Baptist Study Bible.

 

I use the Douay-Rheims and for a comparison the King James version

 

Marcia,the above is uncharacteristic of you.So because of critical remarks by your prof of a single passage in one book you dismissed the NIV as a worthy translation?!

Please satisfy my curiosity though.Try to track down that particular passage in Judges.

 

I would never say the NIV is an unworthy translation. On another thread asking us what Bible we would give a new believer, I recommended an NIV study Bible.

It's just that after seeing that passage in Judges, I preferred the NASB even more - I was already using it at the time.

I'll try to find the passage.

 

Okay,you don't regard the NIV as an unworthy translation yet you don't really like the NIV that much.That seems contradictory.Then,despite the fact that you don't really like it that much you would recommend it to a new believer.I'm puzzled by your words.

 

I think it was Judges 3:20-22.

NASB
20Ehud came to him while he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, "I have a message from God for you." And he arose from his seat.

21Ehud stretched out his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his belly. 22The handle also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the refuse came out.


NIV
20 Ehud then approached him while he was sitting alone in the upper room of his summer palace and said, "I have a message from God for you." As the king rose from his seat, 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king's belly. 22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, which came out his back. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it.


The prof went into this mainly as sort of an off-the-cuff thing when we were asking about translations, I believe. He was not denouncing the NIV or even saying he prefers the NASB. It just came up and he went into this story, which was pretty fascinating. "The refuse came out" in verse 22 is left out of the NIV (I have no idea why).


The scene is this (verse 15): 15But when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab.

So Ehud is raised up by the Lord to deliver them from Eglon the King of Moab. Normally, a right handed man would put his sword on his left thigh, but Ehud hid his on the right thigh:
Ehud made himself a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his cloak.

If I recall, the guards normally searched people just on their left thighs since this is where most men would have the sword, since most were right-handed, but Ehud had it on his right thigh since he was left-handed. This of course surprised the king.

The king was answering nature's call, to put it euphemistically (apparently, this is what it means to be in the "cool chamber)." So when v. 22 says "the refuse came out," it shows the end result (pun not intended).

I think the point of this was that every detail in God's word is there for a reason. I want to emphasize that my prof was not making a big deal out of this, but was showing us how God includes the tiniest details. It was very interesting. I find it interesting too that God raised up a left-handed man for this whole scenario.

My prof is one of the best I've ever had in any school - he's even written a book on hermeneutics (which is the field he has his doctorate in).

 

I think all translations that I know of are pretty valid. I'm not a scholar and I don't think the various translations affect the major themes and the doctrines, so I'm just not hard lined on it. I don't see how it's strange to say I think the NIV is valid but I prefer the NASB. I think the King James and NLT are valid, but I prefer the NASB. What's so strange about that?

 

NASB for ages and ages, but I'm a recent convert to the TNIV. I do use the ESV because it's what my pastor preaches from.

 

The TNIV has this for verse 22:"Even the handle sank in after the blade,and his bowels discharged.Ehud did not pull the sword out,and the fat closed in over it."

So the updated NIV has his bowels discharged.

I still don't get the huge significance for you about one minor passage Marcia.I understand that the entire Bible needs to be carefully translated;but this is a rather small issue when there are more important doctrinal passages which should command our attention.I could see if something was amiss in your estimation within the Epistles -- but the story of Ehud?!

By the way,I guess this means that you will now adopt the TNIV as your new favorite translation since it "correctly" translates this criticsal part of the Word of God.(I'm half-joking here.)

 

There is nothing strange about preferring one version over that of others.But I'm questioning how you came to the conclusion that you didn't really like the NIV because of an obscure passage in Judges --that's all.

 

Sorry, but I cannot help but smile as a remember this story.

Back in those days they had indoor loos! It took us a long time to catch on.

The other thing that caused me to pause,,,this big fat king entertained people in his loo. The RSV has him standing to greet Ehud. Now picture the king standing there in front of the loo and his gown ahem drawn inappropriately in suspension.

Maybe it was just a sunroom as some versions have it.

Cheers,

Jim