How did you select the Bible you use?

[John of Japan]

John, I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

Okay, no problem. :wavey:

 

[TCGreek]

All right. Not exactly what I asked, but I'll not be picky. :smilewinkgrin:

Your original statement was that you know of no scholars who said the NIV was DE. I gave Ryken and you didn't accept him as a translation scholar, even though he was the Literary Chairman for the ESV, has done extensive research in Bible translation methodology and has a Ph. D. in English (making him a professional linguist). That's light years beyond our own Rippon who speaks with such "authority" on the BB about translation.

John, google Mark Strauss critique of the ESV at last year's ETS. Ryken, apparently, fell asleep.

Again, he's no Bible translator, for his PhD is in English.

But hey, let's look at a couple of other genuine scholars who call the NIV a DE translation. Dr. James Price, a Hebrew scholar with a Ph. D. from Dropsy, a Hebrew University, translator on the NKJV and delineator of the optimal equivalence method calls the NIV a DE translation on p. 28 of Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation. He goes into detail about the DE method that I'll not mention here.

I guess it comes down to who do we agree with.

Wayne Grudem is widely known for criticizing the T/NIV. Just saying that name is enough to get Rippon growling. His position is that "Although the T/NIV is "not a thoroughly dynamic equivalence translation, there is so much dynamic equivalence influence in the NIV that I cannot teach theology or ethics from it either. I tried it for one semester several years ago, shortly after the NIV first came out, and I gave it up after a few weeks. Time and again I would try to use a verse to make a point and find that the specific detail I was looking for, a detail of wording that I knew was there in the original Hebrew or Greek, was missing from the verse in the NIV" (Translating Truth, p. 49). So he classifies the NIV as DE, though "not thoroughly" DE.

And no translation is free of dynamic echoes? Even the KJV possesses not a few (Acts 17:18).

Brother, I like you and you're good at Greek like your screen name says, but I hope you'll at least admit that your original statement that I objected to was wrong. There are quite a few scholars who classify the T/NIV as DE. I'm sure I could find many more if I made the effort, but surely I've made my point.

Well, about a scholar calling the T/NIV DE, you're correct, and I'm wrong.

But are those scholars correct in their evaluation?

 

[John of Japan]

John, google Mark Strauss critique of the ESV at last year's ETS. Ryken, apparently, fell asleep.

Again, he's no Bible translator, for his PhD is in English.

Right. He's not a Bible translator. I get that. But he's a linguist, so I consider him qualified to comment on Bible versions.

I guess it comes down to who do we agree with.

I believe there must be criteria to determine what is a DE translation, not just opinion. Writers, even scholars on either side, don't usually present such criteria. DE is not a vague idea, it is a specific method that produces specific results that can be determined.

And no translation is free of dynamic echoes? Even the KJV possesses not a few (Acts 17:18).

I can't answer this question until I know how you define "dynamic." Personally, I don't believe a simple sense-for-sense rendering in the KJV is the same as a DE rendering. I've spent a lot of time trying to work through this, and continue to do so. I have another book on the way to Japan, and my son will send on a couple more after he reads them.

Well, about a scholar calling the T/NIV DE, you're correct, and I'm wrong.

Thanks for that admission!

But are those scholars correct in their evaluation?

That's what I'm trying to work through on my thread.

 

[Rippon]

The intro to the 1983 edition I have says that the translators "have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the Bible demands frequent modificaiotns in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." This is close to being a definition of dynamic equivalence.

Really, is it now? You don't think the HCSB did just about the same thing in their professed optimally-equivalent method?

For the sake of clarity I'll give the full paragraph in the Preface To The NIV.

"The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."

That is not even close to being a defintion of dynamic equivalence. And yet it is not the meaning of the way the NASB was translated either. That's why the NIV and TNIV are mediating translations. I doubt that many true translators of any Bible version would disagree with these translational goals as expressed in this Preface.

 

[djadzin]

I read the KJV, didn't know why for a long time...

I have always read the KJV Bible. That was what I was given when I was very young and to be honest I always found it hard to read and did not always know why I was sticking with that version.

But, my pastor helped me understand why I should read the KJV Bible. Here is an article that he wrote about the KJV if you care to read it. He makes a much better argument for the KJV than I can.

http://www.gracebaptistroseville.com/index_files/The_KJV.pdf

Dale

 

[Trotter]

You've been sold a bum steer, Dale. I don't mean to hurt your felings, but your pastor is full of malarkey. He is just parroting the same old King James Version Only song and dance that's been peddled as "God's own truth" for a long, long time. None of it are his own thoughts but are regurgitations of the same tired arguments... that aren't really arguments at all. Just thought you ought to know.
_____________________________________________________________________

I started with the KJV as that was what was given to me and I had heard all this vile talk about the wicked, wicked NIV. i stumbled along for many years trying to wade through the KJV, but since I was not raised on it like so many others (I was saved at 22) I was floundering badly. I started listening the Moody radio and really started to grow spiritually. I noticed that the bibles used by the different teachers weren't the KJV. I did some research and found that I was hearing several translations... NASB, NIV, NJKV.

The first bible I read with understanding was the "wicked, wicked" NIV. I opened it up to Revelation and could not put it down until I read the entire book. And I understood it (as well as a young Christian can understand Revelation). I read the NIV for quite a while, and then moved tot he NKJV. I used the NKJV for may years, and am now moving to the ESV as that is what my pastor is using.

God has marvelously blessed us with so many wonderful choices in bible translations. I have found that using different translations helps me get a clearer picture of what the underlying text is saying, instead of relying on a single viewpoint/translation.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Now thats a unique post - a poster quoting and praising his own post?!?!?

Not so unique in that it is Rippon doing it.:laugh:

 

[Marcia]

When I did my NT2 course in seminary last summer, we were told to use the NASB, not the NIV or any other version. The prof said the NASB was more accurate, and in some lectures, he would refer to a certain passage and show how it was rendered more accurate in the NASB (yes, he knows Greek) compared to other versions (he did not do this often). One time, he did say he liked the way the NIV had a certain phrase, so he was not totally biased. He said most versions are good for Bible study, and he likes the NKJV a lot, but for this course, we were to use the NASB -- for reading, study, and for our papers especially.

 

[TomVols]

I studied the methods of translation, mss, etc. That led me to my preferred translation(s).

I prefer an ultrathin or thinline Bible when I preach. For my reading Bible, I use paragraphed form with cross references and no study notes. My study Bibles are for after I've done my own spade work.

 

[Revmitchell]

Refuse to use paraphrases (Dynamic Equivalent Translations) and Researched the backgorund of the translators as much as possible.

 

[DHK]

You've been sold a bum steer, Dale. I don't mean to hurt your felings, but your pastor is full of malarkey. He is just parroting the same old King James Version Only song and dance that's been peddled as "God's own truth" for a long, long time. None of it are his own thoughts but are regurgitations of the same tired arguments... that aren't really arguments at all. Just thought you ought to know.

No. Some of those arguments are well thought out. I also have seen them presented elsewhere. But I have seen much worse by the radical KJVO's. This doesn't seem to be one of those sites.
_____________________________________________________________________

I started with the KJV as that was what was given to me and I had heard all this vile talk about the wicked, wicked NIV. i stumbled along for many years trying to wade through the KJV, but since I was not raised on it like so many others (I was saved at 22) I was floundering badly. I started listening the Moody radio and really started to grow spiritually. I noticed that the bibles used by the different teachers weren't the KJV. I did some research and found that I was hearing several translations... NASB, NIV, NJKV.

I was saved at the age of 20. That is not much difference than yourself. Unlike you I came from a Roman Catholic background and was Biblically illiterate. When handed a Bible I couldn't find John 3:16. I had no idea where any of the books were and what the "3:16" meant. The "Bible" they used to lead me to the Lord was a paraphrase--Today's English Version--one of the worst renderings of the Word of God in print. My course of study led me to a small town where there was only one small Baptist church which I was recommended to attend. This church used Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible. That was the second Bible that I was exposed to.
However, I was saved through the Navigator movement, a movement that is strong on discipleship. One of the first things that they did was get me started on Scripture memorization. I had a choice: the RSV or the KJV. I had to ask the meanings of both of those abbreviations. My thought process was this: Anything "revised" must not be very good. That which is printed for the king must be good. So I chose to memorize from the King James Version--at least two Scripture passages every week. After about a year I purchased a KJV Bible. I found it easy to read because I already had a good number of Scriptures memorized by then. I also had had people help me in understanding, and with Scripture memorized, plenty of time to meditate and reflect on the meaning.

I could never go back to any other version. By the time I finished Bible College I had memorized the books of Romans, Ephesians, First John, James, as well as many other individual scriptures--all in the KJV of course. To go and use another translation would be horrible. The Bible wouldn't even make sense to me. My daughter made the observation: Dad why are you the only one in church that prays in the KJV language? I never noticed it before.

I am not KJVO, but KJV preferred. I do believe that the KJV is the most accurate translation in the English language that we have today.

 

[Rippon]

Refuse to use paraphrases (Dynamic Equivalent Translations) and Researched the backgorund (sic)of the translators as much as possible.

I suggest that you go back to the drawing board. Paraphrases and dynamic equivalent versions are in different categories.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Revmitchell, the American flag beside your name is displayed upside down. Are you indicating a signal of distress? Otherwise, the US flag is being dishonored in that orientation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I have always read the KJV Bible. That was what I was given when I was very young and to be honest I always found it hard to read and did not always know why I was sticking with that version. ...

Welcome to the BB, Dale. Thanks for sharing how you came to select the Bible version you use.

 

[David Michael Harris]

I am interested in how you went about deciding which translation of the Bible to use. Beyond that what lead you to buy the specific edition of that Bible (page layout, study helps, cover material et cetera).

In posting this I do realize two things:

1. Many people use more than one Bible.
2. Many people are passionate about the specific Bible they use.

I would like to avoid an AV vs. MV debate in this thread.

My first was rsv with beautiful illustrations given by the Gideons when I was about 11 in school, I was not saved then. My first Bible as a true Christian was a nice small leather bound kjv, it's well used, notes all over the place, then niv, gnb, neb ,bbe, and since then loads of others. Plus all the Greek Hebrew Bibles and helps. Happy with the ESV to be honest at the moment, although I do go to the Greek when I have problems with a particular passage.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I had a choice: the RSV or the KJV. I had to ask the meanings of both of those abbreviations. My thought process was this: Anything "revised" must not be very good. That which is printed for the king must be good. So I chose to memorize from the King James Version--at least two Scripture passages every week. After about a year I purchased a KJV Bible. ...

Ironic, isnt it? That the RSV was not the text being "revised" but rather the one you chose.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Ironic, isnt it? That the RSV was not the text being "revised" but rather the one you chose.

I liked the thees & thous etc in the rsv. And the beautiful pencil illustrations in the version I was given.

 

[MrJim]

It was a gift~~and I've used it for so long I'm finding it hard to change since all my good notes are in it and I can find verses I'm looking for...

...and I don't particularly care for KJV and I'm definitely not a dispensationalist Scofield fan.

It's just the bible I carry to church~when I get home I have loads of versions to look at, from paper to internet.

 

[Hislchild]

Bible Versions/Translations

I would like to say my opinion about Bible translations.
I study English and read the Bible. And I`ve realized that KJ and NKJ versions are close to my Russian Bible ( Sinodal translation is only authorized in Russia).
NASB (New Testament) I also like, it is close to modern Greek translation.
Once I read Billy Graham recommended to start NIV Bible reading. I guess it is simply for first understanding.

 

[Johnv]

How did you select the Bible you use?

I studied scriptural languages in college (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). While no translation in any language is perfect, I've found the NIV to be the most consistent in translating the source texts into today's American English without compromising the context of the passages. The NASB does a good job at this as well.