NIV Question...

What do you mean by choose?

I have many translations in my library. I use them all.

My favorite? KJV of course.

 

It is VERY easy to read and certain parts of it read almost like a storybook.

I can pick it up even when I am tired and read and enjoy the stories.

On the other hand, I try not to use the NIV unless I'm brain dead and my fav is the NASB, but it just doesn't FLOWWWWWWWWW because the translation is more literal.

But for real Bible reading and study, I would rather have a more literal translation.

The NIV is on the weak end as far as I am concerned, but the message still seems to be maintained fairly well.

That is what scares me about the TNIV, it will be accepted by all of those people who have been buying up and using the NIV's. IMHO it (TNIV) IS a bad translation.

 

One reason is because so much "support material" is printed using NIV references; look at all the Sunday School materials, devotionals, etc., that incorporate the NIV into them. I have a friend that uses the KJV as his preferred translation, but uses the NIV when he does prison ministry due to its availability and readability. Bruce

 

SBC material uses KJV AND NIV side by side in their Sunday School booklets. It actually works pretty nice because older people who feel more comfortable with the KJV have it; but if someone wants a newer translation they have it.

Could they have picked a better translation? In my opinion, yes. No doubt they will be dumping the NIV and using the HCSB to cut the extremely high cost the NIV publishers charge for rights of use.

But, this did seem like a nice compromise and people using the book would almost always read it and compare it. I thought this was good idea. In our church we don't have KJVo's. There are a few KJV preferred and most of them have 3 inch text large-print due to their age.

 

My contact in Singapore uses the New International Version (NIV) because he doesn't speak England English or American English but the international English.

 

Some people would rather go out to McDonald’s and order a cheeseburger than stay home and cook a healthy seven course meal. The NIV is a fast-food translation—if you read it too often, your cholesterol level is likely to climb faster than your knowledge of the word of God. Personally, I’ll go for the healthy seven course meal that I find in the NASB. But I suppose that even a fresh cheeseburger is better than a 400 year old chicken sandwich.

 

I was going to amen your post until the very last sentence of it Craig.

It is difficult to comprehend why neither extreme in this debate can simply express views without levelling an attack against the other side.

 

!!! you make it sound as if British English, Am Eng and Int. Eng are mutually exclusive!
now here in Singapore, we speak Singlish lah!

 

The only place i hear King James English spoken
is the Medieval Fair and Baptist prayer language

 

APuritanMindset said:

Why do people choose this translation over the many MUCH more accurate ones available?

</font>

• it's very readable</font>
• it was translated by evangelicals who affirm inerrancy</font>
• it's basically accurate</font>
• it's very popular (and it's helpful to many people to read from the same Bible as their friends and churchmates)</font>
• it has good scholarly support (e.g. not many translations have a concordance as good as Kohlenberger's Analytical Concordance to the NIV)</font>

Probably several reasons. Those are the obvious ones.

 

Puritan ...

Maybe because the ONLY more accurate one is the GREEK NT & HEBREW OT and not many folks read the original language?

 

There is that "attack" word again. What, in your personal opinion, is the difference between an honest, objective, professional and accurate (howbeit lighthearted) comment on a particular flavor of translation and an "attack against the other side”?

 

There is that "attack" word again. What, in your personal opinion, is the difference between an honest, objective, professional and accurate (howbeit lighthearted) comment on a particular flavor of translation and an "attack against the other side”? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not going to answer
your post to somebody who is known to be
asleep. (poor form, IMHO). But i do have
a side comment.

Why don't you tell who you are quoting?
I always have to make an extra effort to
find out who you (not just you, many do it,
so i'm not picking on any specific 'you',
consider it 'yall'). By contrast, the major
method of quoting here cites the name
automatically

 

How do I turn the major method on so I don't have to type names?

 

It did it again,

That was for Ed Edwards ...

 

--here. I just hit the QUOTE button on your post
and all stuff up to "here" was quoted as seen above (well on the posting page it was in
hypertext and not exactly like you see it.)

 

--here. I just hit the QUOTE button on your post
and all stuff up to "here" was quoted as seen above (well on the posting page it was in
hypertext and not exactly like you see it.) </font>[/QUOTE]maybe there are some opition in "my profile" that
have to be adujsted?

 

DR Bob, thanks for defining "dynamic" translation. I am new to the Baptist board and I have been trying to figure out what "dynamic" meant in this context.