Is it time to "update" the NIV?

[alexander284]

It's been ten years since the NIV was updated.

Is it time for another update?

If so, what would you like to see changed?

 

[Reformed1689]

I would say de-update it and go back to 1984.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I would say de-update it and go back to 1984.

No, though the current edition has to tighten up some things --reverting back to the 1984 edition would be a retro-step.

 

[alexander284]

No, though the current edition has to tighten up some things --reverting back to the 1984 edition would be a retro-step.

Just out of curiosity: perhaps you might provide us with some examples of what you'd like to see them tweak or fine tune?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Just out of curiosity: perhaps you might provide us with some examples of what you'd like to see them tweak or fine tune?

Take a look at two threads I started yesterday on that very topic.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, though the current edition has to tighten up some things --reverting back to the 1984 edition would be a retro-step.

Would be making it better though!

 

[Yeshua1]

It's been ten years since the NIV was updated.

Is it time for another update?

If so, what would you like to see changed?

The 1984 edition was the best of the more dynamic translation types, but the 2011 degraded that!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The 1984 edition was the best of the more dynamic translation types, but the 2011 degraded that!

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

 

[37818]

LOL. If the owners of the copyright fixed the NIV to the word of God . . . .

 

[RipponRedeaux]

LOL. If the owners of the copyright fixed the NIV to the word of God . . . .

Sinful balderdash above.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The 1984 edition was the best of the more dynamic translation types, but the 2011 degraded that!

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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

I disagree, NIV has always been considered dynamic equivalent.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I disagree, NIV has always been considered dynamic equivalent.

By the uninformed.

 

[Reformed1689]

By the uninformed.

I guess several different undergrad courses I took are uninformed then?

 

[37818]

Sinful balderdash above.

Both readings are not true, John 13:2, "was in progress," versus "was ended." One reading is the word of God the other is a falsehood. Prove "was ended" is the falsehood. It is the oldest and more difficult reading as well as 99.5% of the manuscript support it.

 

[Conan]

By the uninformed.

The NIV described itself that way.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The NIV described itself that way.

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

LOL. If the owners of the copyright fixed the NIV to the word of God . . . .

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

 

[Reformed1689]

The NIV described itself that way.

Exactly

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Both readings are not true, John 13:2, "was in progress," versus "was ended." One reading is the word of God the other is a falsehood. Prove "was ended" is the falsehood. It is the oldest and more difficult reading as well as 99.5% of the manuscript support it.

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 NIV and NET have the evening meal was in progress