"Graduating" from the NIV

[alexander284]

If someone is ready to choose a more "word for word" Bible translation (after having read the NIV for a number of years) which translation would you steer them toward,if asked your opinion?

 

[Deacon]

My wife and I have recently moved into a retirement community quite a distance from our previous church and are looking for a new church home.
We have sampled quite a few different churches over the past few months.
One of the common characteristics I've noted (besides being Baptist) is that they all preach from the ESV.
I'd suggest using the translation your pastor uses.

Among the popular translations, one is not particularly better than another; it's a matter of varying translation philosophies.
Familiarize yourself with the preface of a couple translations.

• Examine the Hebrew and Greek text they translated from.
• Look to see if the translators followed a particular line of translations or blazed a new path. For example, the ESV notes: "The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy..."
• Investigate the general translation philosophy. Have the translators moved beyond a formal word-for-word and rearranged the phrases and sentence structure to more clearly communicate the original message?
• Consider some peculiarities such as gender inclusiveness. Do they adjust the translation of the masculine pronoun when both genders are included?

I study on the computer and use multiple translations.
Digital study allows me to easily compare the translation with the original Hebrew or Greek text.
My personal preference is the NASB because it is the Bible "I grew up with".
I think you will find that if you are comfortable with the NIV, it will be the one you compare other translations to when you study.

Rob

 

[alexander284]

Hmmmm ... Perhaps this is a regional thing. The Baptist Church I attend (along with the Baptist Churches I've visited in the area) all use the NIV.
My pastor uses the NIV (along with nearly every church member I've spoken to).
The Sunday School materials use the CSB (which a few of the members use, as well).
[By the way, I currently reside in Central California.]
In addition, when I've inquired about members' opinions regarding the ESV, nearly every church member I've spoken with is totally unfamiliar with the translation.
Isn't that interesting?

 

[JonC]

I like the NASB. That said, I don't think you can grow out of the NIV (it's a good translation as well). Maybe use a couple?

 

[alexander284]

I guess there's no reason why I shouldn't continue to use the NIV as my preferred translation.
I think what's happened is that I've allowed all the NIV naysayers get in my head. The ones who post videos on YouTube, for example, stating that one should avoid using "thought for thought" Bible translations.
The suggestions of continuing to use the NIV, but using the NASB for comparison purposes sound like a good idea.

 

[JonC]

I guess there's no reason why I shouldn't continue to use the NIV as my preferred translation.
I think what's happened is that I've allowed all the NIV naysayers get in my head. The ones who post videos on YouTube, for example, stating that one should avoid using "thought for thought" Bible translations.
The suggestions of continuing to use the NIV, but using the NASB for comparison purposes sound like a good idea.

I like reading the NIV, but when I study I use the NASB.

This, however, is because I grew up SBC and the NASB was the translation we used. Most of my commentaries are NASB.

"Word for word" is not always "most accurate English".

 

[37818]

The NIV changed between it's 1984 edition with it's 2011 version. It became more interpretations than translation.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

My wife and I have recently moved into a retirement community quite a distance from our previous church and are looking for a new church home.
We have sampled quite a few different churches over the past few months.
One of the common characteristics I've noted (besides being Baptist) is that they all preach from the ESV.
I'd suggest using the translation your pastor uses.

Among the popular translations, one is not particularly better than another; it's a matter of varying translation philosophies.
Familiarize yourself with the preface of a couple translations.

• Examine the Hebrew and Greek text they translated from.
• Look to see if the translators followed a particular line of translations or blazed a new path. For example, the ESV notes: "The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy..."
• Investigate the general translation philosophy. Have the translators moved beyond a formal word-for-word and rearranged the phrases and sentence structure to more clearly communicate the original message?
• Consider some peculiarities such as gender inclusiveness. Do they adjust the translation of the masculine pronoun when both genders are included?

I study on the computer and use multiple translations.
Digital study allows me to easily compare the translation with the original Hebrew or Greek text.
My personal preference is the NASB because it is the Bible "I grew up with".
I think you will find that if you are comfortable with the NIV, it will be the one you compare other translations to when you study.

Rob

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Hey there Bro. 37818!! I C dat y'all wuz in the USAF! If U don't mind, what wuz/is your USAF job title?? From 1964-69 mine was that of ACFT (F-4C/RF4C) Electrical Systems repair "Person"!! Fm 1988-2005, I wus w/ the TN ANG (Rat cheer in Nashville!) mine was that of an "Avionics Guidance & Control" in what WUZ da 118th Airlift Wing ("brand new" C-130H ["Stretch"] edition). Soon after I retired in 2005, "They" (i.e., Dose POLLYticians "DEcided" 2 rip off the "Airflift" on the 118th's title. IOW, day dun did TOOK ALL of the 118th's C-130H's.....Now it's just the 118th WING! .... Of course U & I "KNOW" that politics had NOTHING to do w/that decision!!Z..;( ;(.....Any howl, we DID due our time & dats ALL dat matters! (PS: I extended my "Tour of duty" back in the 1960's. I'd volunteered 4 'Nam, but IF I wanted 2 go 2 "DeutschLAND," I'd haff 2 extend my AD days. I'd only been saved for abt a yr or so (23 Apr 1966!), sews I new going to (West) Germany must have been God's way of teaching me "SOMETHING!!" ..... It SHORE WUZ!! Although I wuz ONLY a baby Christian, God led me to a very small Baptist "MISSION." What I learned (oft times it was THE HARD Way!!) there set me straight in many ways! The mission was called LANDSTUHL (Where the US ARMY has its BIG MEDICAL center....Just a few "Clicks" fm Ramstein AFB)....BTW, Ramstein was once a NAZI "Luftwaffe base! Good ole H Goring (A Hitler's NAZI AF Chief) planned 4 RAB to be just off their Autobahn (Which gave 5-star Gen Eisenhower the "inspiration 4 our INTERSTATE's!!) E-12 (ran E-W thru MANY US (or NAZI in WW2) military bases). I remember seeing that old acft "ramp" which led fm RAB 2 Autobahn E-12. That wuz ole H Goring's "idea": Have the NAZI AFB's near the autobahn's so they cud take off & land using the A B's rather than having 2 build the bases' own runways!! Yeah, HG may have been on the wrong side in WW2, but he did have a good idea for constructing their Luftwaffe's air bases. 2 bad that the USAF didn't try that though: Think of all the $$$ the US could have saved!! U put the USAF bases right next 2 our Interstates!! A Hitler & Co...may have been (& most likely were) insane, (NOT that any of OUR politicians AREN'T ....!). Save the US taxpayers MONEY??!! Y that's UNamercan!! ....!!

 

[Paul from Antioch]

You/me due think alike!! The church of which they've let me in to (www.lighthousenashville.org) uses the ESV as well. Personally, I prefer the NLT, but both are (2 me anyway) much alike. Don Moen had a song out yrs ago: "God IS Good all the time" Our Father IS GOOD (HE saved US...NOT the other way around!!). Personally, God has not called me 2 Preach, BUT He has called me to teach. 4 sum yrs (1976 2 1993) I taught HS @ the now defunct Bible Baptist Academy & part-time @ my alma mater Clarksville (TN) Baptist College. I primarily taught history (gut an MA in HISTORY fm Austin Peay State Univ in 1981). Many people think of History as just a bunch of names & dates...& all that kind of stuff. 2 ME, I think HISZTORY iS "HIS"(God's) "STORY"! viz., "If we don't no from whence we came .....Howl in the WORLD will we no where we R going??!!" God's WORD has "Historical Books" in the OT. ..... Maybe HE was/is trying 2 tell us SOMETHING!!??!! Luv y'all w/the "LOVE of OUR Father!!

 

[37818]

@Paul from Antioch,
Active duty from '66 to '70. The Job was aircraft fuel system maintainance mechanic.

Back then my main Bible study tools were KJ Vs. Scofield Reference Bibles. Strong 's Exhaustive Concordance. And a 7 volume Adam's Clark's commentary. A Nestle Greek New Testament. A Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

 

[Dr. Bob]

My church/family used KJV1769 Oxford (not the evil Cambridge ) usually Scofield Notes or Thompson Chain.

In high school we home schooled, and for Bible we used the NIV (every word, every verse thru entire Bible in 3 years each morning. Kids "eyes were opened" and they better understood a number of passages and continually exclaimed how they "knew" and "memorized" KJV but didn't totally understand the language or vocabulary.

They got dual Bibles (KJV on left page, NIV on right page) for use in Bible college. I shifted totally to the GET Real Bible (Griffin Expanded Translation) and preached from my translation own totally for 30 years.

We all "graduated" to the more literal ESV (closer to Greek) now. Avoid the rush. Shift to ESV now

 

[alexander284]

For whatever reason, in regard to the more "word for word" Bible translations, I find myself favoring the NASB95 over the ESV.
I think, perhaps, because I've never been one to use the KJV.
What I mean to say is: I've often read that the ESV's popularity is due, in large part, to its similarities to the KJV.
As I understand it, it reads a lot like the KJV, as far as cadence, syntax, sentence structure, etc.?

 

[Conan]

KJV, RV, RSV, ESV.

KJV, ASV, NASB, NASB95.

 

[Deacon]

KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV.

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of precision were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for this generation and generations to come.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version : Preface (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).

KJV, ASV, NASB.

...in 1959 a new and original translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation used for the ASV and KJV to produce an accurate and readable English text. The result is the New American Standard Bible.
This edition of the NASB represents updates according to modern English usage and refinements recommended over the last several years as well as updates based on current research of the ancient manuscripts.
New American Standard Bible : Preface (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020).

NIV

The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The translators came from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, giving the translation an international scope. They were from many denominations and churches—including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and others. This breadth of denominational and theological perspective helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
The New International Version : Preface (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).

 

[37818]

What set me against the 1978 NIV started with how Acts 2:38 was translated, . . . so that your sins may be forgiven.

 

[37818]

One verse turn offs.


In with the NASB, John 1:18, . . . only begotten God . . . . [ Re: the NWT ]

 

[Silverhair]

What set me against the 1978 NIV started with how Acts 2:38 was translated, . . . so that your sins may be forgiven.

The 2011 NIV has translated the text.

Act 2:38 ... for the forgiveness of your sins.

 

[Silverhair]

One verse turn offs.


In with the NASB, John 1:18, . . . only begotten God . . . . [ Re: the NWT ]

Even modern Greek scholars are in disagreement as to how that verse should be translated. The following from the NET bible explains why this issue arises:
The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenē theo, "the only God") versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenē huio, "the only son") is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the MSS, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra; thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of MSS, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ À1,13 œ lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ã75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ã66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participleὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. NET

 

[37818]

The 2011 NIV has translated the text.

Act 2:38 ... for the forgiveness of your sins.

The Zondervan copyright holders made that correction in their 1984 edition.