essentially its the same version, just that the TNIV was discontinued to make way for the Niv 2011!
My favorite translation to study from is the NASB 1977 edition, also do use HCSB/ESV!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Esv/niv
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
essentially its the same version, just that the TNIV was discontinued to make way for the Niv 2011!
My favorite translation to study from is the NASB 1977 edition, also do use HCSB/ESV!
"Decided to make the jump"? It was bore like a baby step;they're very much alike.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I have mixed feelings about the HCSB. I like that, overall, it is more literal than the NIV.
On the other hand, it seems to remove a lot of words that I am accustomed to reading.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Do you think the TNIV went too far with it's "gender inclusive" language?
yes, that is why I perfer to stick with the Nasb for my primary study version!
In the grand scheme of things the HCSB is a tad more literal than the NIV. Don't believe the hype.
In other words it uses other words.
No,I do not think so. Neither has the NLTse which has not been the brunt of a disinformation campaign.
The inconsistency of World magazine is something to behold. It advertizes the Bible translation called God's World which uses about the same amount of gender specific language as does the current NIV. But World has no problem with advertizing revenue when it comes down to it. That's major inconsistency. If the TNIV and 2011 NIV are so all-fired liberal,following a feminist agenda and watering-down the Word of the Lord than why advertize a version which is more dynamic and uses gender inclusive language far more than its darling...the ESV?
alexander284
Well-Known Member
is the perception that the NASB is too "wooden" overstated?
alexander284
Well-Known Member
In the grand scheme of things the HCSB is a tad more literal than the NIV. Don't believe the hype.
In other words it uses other words.
yes, i'm finding myself dissatisfied with the HCSB now.
and, yes, good point. its does use other words. haha
alexander284
Well-Known Member
i'll take any of the NIVs over the so called God's Word Translation!
i do prefer the ESV to the NIV, but that is a matter of preference.
pilgrim_99
Member
It's God's Word, as I'm sure you know.
The heat over the Gender-neutral NIV is because it has been the bestselling version for a generation. (Although my guess is that the events since 1997 have eroded its market share a bit.) While some may use the NLT as their primary version, there's basically zero chance that it will become the #1 seller. I think that's why it usually isn't brought up in these debates. (However Grudem et al will mention it from time to time.) But to be consistent as you note, those who wanted Lifeway to throw out the NIV would needed to have called for them to get rid of the NLT as well.
pilgrim_99
Member
I've thought about picking up a HCSB but have never gotten around to it with the exception of a pocket edition that lacks marginal notes. One reason is probably because they are all red letter editions, which I find difficult to read. There are also some unique formatting decisions made with the HCSB that J. Mark Bertrand gets into here.
Most of my reading in recent years has been from the KJV and NKJV and I've used the ESV and NASB a lot in the past. I used the NIV some when I first started reading the Bible, but haven't consulted it much over the past decade.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
my favorites are the ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV. the HCSB is disappointing. the NLT is oversimplified, in my opinion.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
i think the reason the NLT is not spoken of much is because it's so "dynamic."
i find that it oversimplifies key passages. it seems fine until you compare it to the others.
As long as you realise its limitations...
My main beef on NLT is its decision to not keep traditional theological terms such as justification, propiation etc!
alexander284
Well-Known Member
yes. not even the NIV uses "propitiation," right?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
The CEB, CSB, EHV, ISV, NET and WEB don't use the word.
The NABRE, and NRSV use it only once.
The LEB uses it twice.
MOUNCE uses it thrice.
ESV, NASB and NKJV use it four times.
LSB uses the word five times.
Regarding the word reconciliation -- (not counting forms of the word) as it occurs in the New Testament only :
The NIV, CEB, EHV, NET, NRSV and NABRE all use it five times.
The LEB, LSB, NASB, MOUNCE, CSB and ESV all use it four times.
The NKJV, WEB and ISV use it three times.
The NLT uses it just once.
Regarding the word justification, (no other form of the word) :
The CSB, NABRE, NRSV use the word five times each.
The NIV and ISV use it four times.
The EHV, ESV, MOUNCE, NASB, NKJV, LSB, LEB and NKJV use it three times
The NET and WEB use it twice.
The CEB and NLT do not use the word at all.