Is it time to "update" the NIV?

[RipponRedeaux]

Exactly

Exactly wrong.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"I think it's fair to say that in terms of translation philosophy, the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB." Rod Decker

 

[Reformed1689]

Exactly wrong.

You don't believe Zondervan used to say it was a dynamic equivalent translation? Oh if I knew the link in the wayback machine I would pull it out for you.

 

[Conan]

You don't believe Zondervan used to say it was a dynamic equivalent translation? Oh if I knew the link in the wayback machine I would pull it out for you.

I know I read it was so. Back then they were proud it was dynamic equivalent. They were the ones who created the term.

 

[Conan]

There is no humor in saying that the NIV is not the Word of God. You are being sinful to say such a thing.

And pretending the jerusalem bible and new english bibles are acceptable versions could be as well. The NIV is nowhere close to an excellent version. It can use improvement. You can deny the NIV is a dynamic equivalent version all you want, but its in print in the old days. Just because you didn't see it doesn't make it not true. Others of us saw it. In print. They were once very proud of the term dynamic equivalence

 

[Conan]

"I think it's fair to say that in terms of translation philosophy, the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB." Rod Decker

Was Mr. Decker paid by the NIV or the ESV? The Old RSV would be closer to the NASB than the NIV. So then would the ESV. It's not alright for "christian advertising" to tell fibs to sell books. Although they think it is.

 

[alexander284]

And pretending the jerusalem bible and new english bibles are acceptable versions could be as well. The NIV is nowhere close to an excellent version. It can use improvement. You can deny the NIV is a dynamic equivalent version all you want, but its in print in the old days. Just because you didn't see it doesn't make it not true. Others of us saw it. In print. They were once very proud of the term dynamic equivalence

Just out of curiosity: which Bible translation(s) do you prefer to utilize?

 

[Conan]

Just out of curiosity: which Bible translation(s) do you prefer to utilize?

KJV and William Tyndales New Testaments mostly.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I know I read it was so. Back then they were proud it was dynamic equivalent. They were the ones who created the term.

Dr. Eugene Nida created the term which he subsequently changed to Functional Equivalence because people misunderstood the term Dynamic Equivalence.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

And pretending the jerusalem bible and new english bibles are acceptable versions could be as well.

I referenced the NJB and REB. You need to get it straight. And those two are indeed acceptable Bible translations:; not as good as the NIV, but acceptable. I have made threads on both noting their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You can deny the NIV is a dynamic equivalent version all you want, but its in print in the old days.

The primary person connected with the NIV who calls it a dynamic version is Bill Mounce.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Was Mr. Decker paid by the NIV or the ESV?

He was not paid by anyone or any organization. He was a fine Christian scholar who wrote independently.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

It's not alright for "christian advertising" to tell fibs to sell books. Although they think it is.

Let's not heap abuse on Crossway.

 

[37818]

LEB and GW have taking place
CEB has sharing the evening meal
Mounce has During the evening meal
The NABRE, NASB, ESV, NRSV and WEB all have during supper
The NIVF and NET have the evening meal was in progress

And I understand that chosen reading is in error. Noting Judas took part in our Lord's institution of His rememberence Luke 22:19-21 before Jesus sent Judas out, John 13:26-30.

 

[Yeshua1]

While your pastor preachers from the 2020NIV, which translation do you use?

Usually the Nas and the Esv!

 

[Yeshua1]

The NIV has never been in that category. You know that.

It is not in the formal camp, from the get go!

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree, NIV has always been considered dynamic equivalent.

They prefer the term "mediating", but os still more of as dynamic translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

By the uninformed.

No, by the Niv translators themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

The NIV described itself that way.

Indeed, as they distanced themselves from being in the word for word formal and more into thought for thought camp!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, in fact it does not. Read the preface. There is no mention of it being a dynamic, or functionally equivalent translation. It is a mediating translation, the same middle ground that the NET, CSB and the NABRE occupy.

Thought for thought, not a word for word translation, per them!