Do any other "modern-version-ers" besides me dislike the NIV?

I don't care for the NIV. I prefer the NASB, NKJV, KJV, Geneva, etc... over the NIV.

 

The NIV is one of my top 3 favorites.

 

I distrust the NIV due to the combination of the translation philosophy and the theological make up of the committee. Some were conservative but others apparently were liberal and higher critics.

 

My recollection is that the translators of the NIV had to sign a statement on inerrancy (the Chicago Statement, perhaps?).

 

Like whom, for instance?

 

While I know some dynamic equivalence is necessary to convey the translation of some of the Greek & Hebrew into English, I believe the NIV over-uses it. However, I believe it IS a valid BV.

 

I think the NIV is good translation -but I find it very bland and unengaging. I rarely if ever take it off of my shelf.

 

I personally do not favor the NIV's dynamic equivalency, and I question the motive of the translators, but all as far as dynamic translations go it seems pretty good.

 

I don't mind the NIV for just reading/devotions, but I only use a literal translation for detailed study.

 

The NIV is a distinctly dynamic equivalence translation that is theologically biased towards the Reformed tradition. These facts, in my opinion, make it an unacceptable translation for lay persons who do not have a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and a strong background in theology.

 

Who said it is biased toward the Reformed position?

And why mention it if you're trying to dissuade people from using it?

 

Yeah...cuz being biased toward the reformed tradition is bloody damnable isn't it?

I don't wanna sound rude, but I am Reformed and I take offense at that. Just because I may believe that God is sovereign and that only some people come to salvation and that that is the way God has it planned, doesn't mean I am a bad person. And it sure as there is a hell shouldn't discount me as a theologian.

Same with a Bible translation. ANY dynamic equivalent translation will be biased toward a particular tradition. The NLT seems very much biased against the Reformed tradition. It is much less accurate too.

Point being, we shouldn't throw something out because it doesn't read right with our theology. 1 Timothy, where Paul says, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4 ESV) doesn't seem to jive with my theology, but I don't throw it out (in fact, I try daily to mold my theology to fit the text). The Purpose Driven Life didn't always jive with my theology, but I didn't throw it out.

Different translations of the Bible pick up on different nuances of the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes a Greek word can have multiple meanings and the context gives no clues whatsoever to which meaning to use. The different translations help us see those meanings.

hmm...I'm gonna stop...sorry to go off...I just really dislike people's attitude toward Reformed people sometimes, especially when it gives the implication that we don't know our stuff.

I do not like the NIV at all and I am Reformed. It's not biased toward the reformed tradition, it's just a bad translation, in my opinion.

 

To mix it up even more, I am NOT Reformed or Calvinistic at all, and I love the NIV.

 

I like the NIV too. When I tried to switch to the NASU, I soon discovered that the "literal" word for word translation has many translations that I didn't agree with too.

There is no substitute for knowing Hebrew and Greek.

Having used the NIV for twenty years now, the flow of the text seems much more conducive then even the ESV.

If you don't know Hebrew or Greek, reading from the NIV, NASU, KJV, ESV, HCSB will show you where translation difficulties lie.

 

Yes, the NIV may read more smoothly, but that doesn't mean it is a good version of the Scriptures. The TNIV reads pretty nicely as well, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a crap translation. A nice read shouldn't be our test for choosing a Bible version. Accuracy should be the first thing we look for.

 

I don't really "dislike" the NIV, but there are other versions I like better.

The NIV was the second BV I read cover-to-cover. It is fairly "readable" and that helps one to cover a lot quickly. However, just being able to briskly read through passages quickly has the it's disadvantages. I tend to not be able to remember what I just read. It just doesn't engage my attention (mind, spirit, etc) as it should.

An interlinear, of course, forces me to slloooowww ddoooowwnn. It really engages all my faculties, to the point of pain in short order.

The ideal is somewhere between the extreme "accuracy" of rigid formalality (interlinear) and a less accurate loose paraphrase.

For me, the NIV misses the ideal balance, toward the paraphrase end. It has too much in common with the first BV I read cover-to-cover: "Good News For Modern Man". Certainly, the NIV is much superior to the GNMM, but you get the idea.

 

APuritanMindset said:

Yes, the NIV may read more smoothly, but that doesn't mean it is a good version of the Scriptures.

Whenever I've done a close study of the meaning of some Greek word, looking at how the word was used historically, how it was used at the time of the New Testament, how it was generally used by the Biblical author in question, and so forth, at the conclusion I've found myself agreeing with the NIV's rendering more often than not.

If that is an inaccurate translation, may inaccurate translations increase.