Defense of the NIV

[John of Japan]

Since he was instrumental in the methodology of the Good News Bible;I'm sure he must have written about that particular version at least.

In his personal story of his journey as a translating consultant, Fascinated by Languages, he only mentioned two English versions. He mentions the ERV on p. 40 only saying that the Chinese Union Ver. was influenced by it. On p. 79 he tells how he urged Ken Taylor to change his LB, since he left out the star as a moving object in Matt. 2:9.

Somewhere in one of his books he mentions the TEV (GNB) only to point out that the original rendering of the Gr. for "blood" (haima) as "death" had been strongly objected to and thus changed back to "blood" in subsequent editions. But I don't have time right now to find that.

 

[Yeshua1]

On what basis is it not a good translation? What better translations are there in your view and why?

Nasb/ Nkjv/esv/Niv 1984/HCSB, just to name a few!

 

[Rippon]

Nasb/ Nkjv/esv/Niv 1984/HCSB, just to name a few!

I had asked jdf on what basis is the NIV not a good translation. I had also asked in his estimation what are better versions and why.

 

[Rippon]

The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation, pretty much the same thing as an "essentially literal" one.

From the HCSB's Preface:

"The nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original."

To which Dr. Thomas Nass of WELS replies:

"Facetiously,one could say that these goals are nothing new. This is much the way the ESV describes its work,and even the NIV and NLT. Everyone wants to convey as much information as possible. Many translations claim to shift away from the literal only when it is needed to render the text clearly in English."

 

[Rippon]

Daniel Wallace :

"In reality,the NIV produces a more understandable, and ultimately more accurate rendering of the Bible precisely because the translators were committed to faithfulness to meaning rather than faithfulnes to form."

 

[John of Japan]

From the HCSB's Preface:

"The nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original."

To which Dr. Thomas Nass of WELS replies:

"Facetiously,one could say that these goals are nothing new. This is much the way the ESV describes its work,and even the NIV and NLT. Everyone wants to convey as much information as possible. Many translations claim to shift away from the literal only when it is needed to render the text clearly in English."

Someone else with an opinion. Nothing new here.

 

[Rippon]

Someone else with an opinion. Nothing new here.

One could say Dr. Price --someone with an opinion. Nothing new here.

 

[Yeshua1]

Daniel Wallace :

"In reality,the NIV produces a more understandable, and ultimately more accurate rendering of the Bible precisely because the translators were committed to faithfulness to meaning rather than faithfulnes to form."

isn't the form, the construction and grammar of the used words though where we determine the real meaning from?

especially if one holds to a verbal plenary view of the originals?