Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"

[Rippon]

I still have and use bothe the 1984 Niv/1977 nasb, and actually believe their revisions made them worse, not better...

Examples please. You make many assertions with no support. Change your typical style.

 

[Rippon]

The cry to have the one that is easiest to understand,

There is no such "cry" Bud.

or the ones that will fit best into current views on things such as gender/feminism fuels much of this I fear..

You have many false fears.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no such "cry" Bud.

yes there is, as in we need to keep updating the English versions to make it "easier" to accept and understand!

You have many false fears.

Not just me, as several scholars with the field of translation think the Niv 2005/2011 went to far addressing gender issues!

 

[Rippon]

Not just me, as several scholars with the field of translation think the Niv 2005/2011 went to far addressing gender issues!

You already know that the 2011 NIV took a few steps back from the TNIV.

I want you to cite scholars who think the 2011 NIV went too far with inclusive language. Do me a favor. Make sure that your list of "scholars" are not connected with the ESV.

For instance, I can name some scholars who have not been associated with the 2011 NIV and believe that it does not have any,as you put it, "gender issues." D.A. Carson, Rod Decker, Daniel Wallace (yes, eat your heart out Van!) and Thomas Nass.

 

[Rippon]

BTW, Yeshua1, do you think that there have been ANY examples where the NIV has arrived at a closer meaning than a "word for word" translation would allow?

Y1, you still haven't answered Jon's question.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I truly dislike threads like this and will not participate. Can't wait to reach 10 pages and mandatory "shut down".

Of course, some will immediately start a new thread on the same worn out topics. :BangHead:

 

[Revmitchell]

Will this make it go over to 10 pages?

 

[Revmitchell]

Will this make it to go over to 10 pages?

 

[Revmitchell]

How about this?

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe this will.

 

[Revmitchell]

Or this one maybe.

 

[Revmitchell]

There we go! Page 10!

 

[Reformed]

Of course, some will immediately start a new thread on the same worn out topics.

Bob, you're a prophet!

 

[Rippon]

Or this one maybe.

RM, the drive-by expert.

 

[Rippon]

Since this thread deals with Bill Mounce I thought I would quote him regarding the ESV and current NIV. Dr. Mounce was the former head of the ESV N.T. translation team. Now he is on the 2011 NIV translation team. For one week every summer the team meets to discuss possible updates to the text.

Dr. Mounce believes the NIV is dynamic as Tom pointed out in his OP. That of course is contrary to my understanding of functional equivalence as a translational philosophy. But I digress. After his first experience with the members of the NIV team he said the following:

"I watched godly men and women struggle, sometimes agonize, over just the right wording so the NIV would faithfully convey the same meaning as intended by the biblical author. Whoever says dynamic translators have a lower view of Scripture needs to sit behind the veil and watch this group work."

And at another time fleshing things out a bit via Twitter:

"All Bible translations are constantly being updated. New research teaches us new things. I can tell you there is absolutely no watering down to the truth in the NIV. The NIV and ESV have different translation philosophies; and depending on where you are in life and ministry, you may find one more helpful than the other. But on both committees I never for a second saw the slightest urge to be liberal or politically correct. People who make these charges should read what the translators have written elsewhere, and you will see there is not an ounce of truth to the charges."

Just a reminder.