Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

[Thermodynamics]

To go back and answer the OP:

I have been reading the Authorized Version since I was a child. Several years ago I bought a NASB, but I didn't like the choppy feel of that translation, so I never got into it much.

Just this week I bought an NIV. However, to be fair what I bought was the "Archaeological Study Bible" which is only avaliable in NIV. If there were a AV edition I would have bought that. Having said that I am anxious to read the NIV translation just to see what all the fuss is about. One thing that I have noticed in reading a few sections from the NIV is that because I don't know what is coming next (as I do with the AV), I am forced to read slower and pay closer attention.

I don't see myself ever changing to a version other than the AV either as my "take to church" Bible or as one of my pirmary "read at home" Bibles. I have a very high comfort level with the English used in the AV. I believe the Majority Text manuscripts used by the translators along with the style of English, combined with the 1769 corrections make the AV a great (though not perfect) translation.

 

[gb93433]

I have been reading the Authorized Version since I was a child. Several years ago I bought a NASB, but I didn't like the choppy feel of that translation, so I never got into it much.

The NASB was updated in 1995 (NASU95) and it seems to be better.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Just this week I bought an NIV. However, to be fair what I bought was the "Archaeological Study Bible" which is only avaliable in NIV. If there were a AV edition I would have bought that. Having said that I am anxious to read the NIV translation just to see what all the fuss is about...

My opinion, which follows, is not a criticism of Thermodynamics or anyone in particular: I think the NIV should naturally have run-its-course by now. It is over 30 years old. It is time to move on; that why there is the TNIV, not to mention others like the ESV, HCSB, and NASB95 (all of which I think would be preferrable to the NIV).

I never thought the NIV was that good to begin with. It seemed to fill a niche at the time as a middle ground between the literalness of the Tyndale-tradition texts (ASV, RSV, KJVs) and the loose paraphrasical texts (like the Living Bible, Good News, Phillips).

I think three factors lend 'life support' to the NIV: first, fundamental evangelicals are very slow in adopting new Bible versions; second, this attitude allows older versions to continue to be profitable for publishers. What is on the bookstore shelves is what is gonna sell. The NIV text is being 'artificially resuscitated' by pure marketing editions such as the Archaelogical Study Bible. It is strange to think that simple additions (which would hardly furnish a book on their own merit) can transform an oversold geriatric text into an expensive volume. Third, there is now a large and established investment of NIVs and NIV-based study aids in the hands of the public that will not be dismissed soon.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Hi Franklin, there is no way I could take your response as critical of me in any way. I tend to agree based on what I have read so far that the NIV is lacking in many ways. The English does not seem to "flow" like the AV does, the NASB has that same problem. I have thought about getting an ESV, but when I go the the book store with the intention of buying one I always end up asking myself "Self, when will you ever read this and what will this add to your Bible study that your old AV can't do for you?" I can't answer those questions, so I end up walking out with something other that the ESV.

The NKJV is supposed to be an AV in updated English, but I find it to be a pale and lifeless immitation of it's graceful grandfather.

To me (and this is just my opinion so please don't get mad at me) updating the English of the AV is a bit like re-painting the Mona Lisa with her wearing a jogging suit that has the word "PINK" on the butt. Yes, it would be more modern, but is more modern always better?

I'd rather read Jesus saying "follow after me" rather than "hang with me for awhile dude."

I think I will stick with my tested 400 year old AV Bibles as my primary church and home translation. I am open to something new and better coming along, but I have not seen it yet.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... One thing that I have noticed in reading a few sections from the NIV is that because I don't know what is coming next (as I do with the AV), I am forced to read slower and pay closer attention...

I applaud your very honest observation; it is precisely one of the best reasons to investigate other English translations.

 

[Thermodynamics]

I applaud your very honest observation; it is precisely one of the best reasons to investigate other English translations.

That much is true and part of the reason I am anxoius to read it. I think the NIV might also be good for someone who wants to read through the Bible in a very casual way or for someone who is a weak reader.

Of course no trasnlation is going to be perfect and one should always defer to the original Hebrew or Greek, but if you are going to do a careful in-depth study other translations are clearly better choices.

 

[EdSutton]

My opinion, which follows, is not a criticism of Thermodynamics or anyone in particular: I think the NIV should naturally have run-its-course by now. It is over 30 years old. It is time to move on; that why there is the TNIV, not to mention others like the ESV, HCSB, and NASB95 (all of which I think would be preferrable to the NIV).

I never thought the NIV was that good to begin with. It seemed to fill a niche at the time as a middle ground between the literalness of the Tyndale-tradition texts (ASV, RSV, KJVs) and the loose paraphrasical texts (like the Living Bible, Good News, Phillips).

I think three factors lend 'life support' to the NIV: first, fundamental evangelicals are very slow in adopting new Bible versions; second, this attitude allows older versions to continue to be profitable for publishers. What is on the bookstore shelves is what is gonna sell. The NIV text is being 'artificially resuscitated' by pure marketing editions such as the Archaelogical Study Bible. It is strange to think that simple additions (which would hardly furnish a book on their own merit) can transform an oversold geriatric text into an expensive volume. Third, there is now a large and established investment of NIVs and NIV-based study aids in the hands of the public that will not be dismissed soon.

I'll simply repeat what I've said previously, in essence, elsewhere.

There have to be reasons why some versions achieve lasting 'dominance' and others do not, that go further than a brief glance, on the surface. While some versions have appeared to fill one niche or another, for some periods of time, others have appeared to take a much larger overall role, as translations.

Despite any and all the 'hype' about some versions, none have ever come close to achieving the overall acceptance, at least in the English language, of first the KJV, and later the NIV, for at least the last two centuries.

One could offer all kinds of reasons why other versions are 'superior' to these for their time. Nevertheless the fact remains that none have come anywhere close to eclipsing them for overall general acceptance among the church for any long period. And I include such as the RSV and HCSB, which despite the 'power' of the huge church organizations that lie behind these two, have never made any real and lasting 'dents' in the armor of such as the KJV, NIV, and later the NKJV.

Will that be the case in another 20 years? I dunno' but it certainly appears to be the case, as of today.

FTR, I do not particularly like the 'translation style' of the NIV, preferring more of a 'formal equivalence' approach.

And I'll add that, despite the above 'cracks', neither the KJV or NIV seem to be exactly on "'life-support'" or in any need of "being 'artificially resuscitated'" anytime soon.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I'd rather read Jesus saying "follow after me" rather than "hang with me for awhile dude."

You apparently are not the least familiar with modern versions. THE MESSAGE Bible has probably the most free form around. But look how it renders Matthew 18:22:When Jesus heard that, he said, "Then there's only one thing left to do, Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I think I will stick with my tested 400 year old AV Bibles as my primary church and home translation. I am open to something new and better coming along, but I have not seen it yet.

You haven't really been looking though, have you?

 

[Rippon]

What If...

I think the NIV should naturally have run-its-course by now. It is over 30 years old. It is time to move on; that why there is the TNIV...

What if it was said that :"The KJV has run-its-course by now. It's almost 400 years old. It's time to move on; that's why there is the TNIV..."

I never thought the NIV was that good to begin with. It seemed to fill a niche at the time as a middle ground between the literalness of the Tyndale-tradition texts (ASV, RSV, KJVs) and the loose paraphrasical texts (like the Living Bible, Good News, Phillips).

"I never thought the KJV was that good to begin with. It seemed to fill a niche at the time as a middle ground between the literalness of the Tyndale and the looser second Wycliffe translation."

an oversold geriatric text ...

"The KJV is an oversold geriatric text."

 

[Rippon]

I think the NIV might also be good for someone who wants to read through the Bible in a very casual way or for someone who is a weak reader.

This tells me that you really haven't read the NIV with any degree of thoroughness."In a very casual way."? Come on. Even the more dynamic NLTse would not qualify as being a very casual read. The NIV is not meant for weak readers. The NIrV is targeted for that market as well as non-native English readers.

but if you are going to do a careful in-depth study other translations are clearly better choices.

In your opinon what are these clearly better choices?

 

[Thermodynamics]

Ah Rippon my friend, I knew you would be along to rip me to shreads as soon as you caught wind that I had posted in this thread. It is good to see you again.

This tells me that you really haven't read the NIV with any degree of thoroughness.

If you had bothered to read all of my posts in this thread you would not need to read between the lines to see that I have not read the NIV with any degree of thoroughness, BECAUSE I SAID SO IN MY FIRST POST.

"In a very casual way."? Come on. Even the more dynamic NLTse would not qualify as being a very casual read. The NIV is not meant for weak readers. The NIrV is targeted for that market as well as non-native English readers.

By casual I mean that the NIV is not the type of translation that you are going to want to do detailed word studies from, the reason for that is because it is a more dynamic translation. A translation like the NASB or AV would be better suited to detailed study because they employ a more literal or word for word method of translation.

In your opinon what are these clearly better choices?

See above, NASB or AV would be better for detailed study while NIV might be better for a "big picture" view of the Bible.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

I'd rather read Jesus saying "follow after me" rather than "hang with me for awhile dude."

Originally Posted by Rippon

You apparently are not the least familiar with modern versions.

That was cheek Mr. Rippon, don't be so serious all the time my friend!:laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Ah Rippon, my friend. It is good to see you again.

It's good to be seen.

I have not read the NIV with any degree of thoroughness...

It's fine to acknowledge that. But why do you criticize that which you haven't read that thoroughly? Your assertions fall flat because you don't really know.

By casual I mean that the NIV is not the type of translation that you are going to want to do detailed word studies from,

Why not? Even with the more functionally-equivalent NLTse you can do word studies and comparisons etc.

the reason for that is because it is a more dynamic translation.

It is more dynamic than some other versions which lends to its greater accuracy.

A translation like the NASB or AV would be better suited to detailed study because they employ a more literal or word for word method of translation.

The NASB and AV do not employ a word-for-word method of translation. That is a myth.

 

[Rippon]

That was cheek Mr. Rippon, don't be so serious all the time my friend!:laugh:

But you are not making any legit points. If you think that modern versions are so informal as you tried to characterize them in jest -- you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Thermodynamics]

It's fine to acknowledge that. But why do you criticize that which you haven't read that thoroughly? Your assertions fall flat because you don't really know

.

To point out that things are different is not to be critical. If I were to say that a knife is better for cutting steak than a spoon, I am not being critical of the spoon.

 

[Thermodynamics]

But you are not making any legit points. If you think that modern versions are so informal as you tried to characterize them in jest -- you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about.

I am making a legitimate point, the tone of the AV is more dignified to me than the tone of the NIV. Again, this is pointing out a difference, not being critical of one or the other.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... And I'll add that, despite the above 'cracks', neither the KJV or NIV seem to be exactly on "'life-support'" or in any need of "being 'artificially resuscitated'" anytime soon.

I will offer my apology if my 'tone' has offended your sensibilities. However, I won't apologize for my opinion. I'm not sure how else I can say that I think the NIV text is being 'propped-up' by superficial means. I don't mind that the NIV text is still available; I think it should be just as accessible as other past translations such as the Geneva, Weymouth, and Wuest.

 

[EdSutton]

I will offer my apology if my 'tone' has offended your sensibilities. However, I won't apologize for my opinion. I'm not sure how else I can say that I think the NIV text is being 'propped-up' by superficial means. I don't mind that the NIV text is still available; I think it should be just as accessible as other past translations such as the Geneva, Weymouth, and Wuest.

The "'tone'" as you put it, has not offended me, at all.

Nor has your opinion, for that matter. However, similar to what I said in an earlier post, on this thread, it is only an opinion that becomes a preference, and one is not necessarily any better than another.

However, I still believe it is entirely inaccurate to say that the current best selling English Bible for the last 2-3 decades is on any "'life support'" or needing any "'artificial resuscitation'" by any stretch. Nor do I believe that there is all that much need for the text of the NIV to be "'propped up'", by any stretch.

The publisher/owner of the NIV and TNIV have made a tremendous marketing and PR campaign for the TNIV as a 'replacement' and as an 'improved' and 'superior version', to the NIV, IMO. The owners of other versions, such as the ESV, NLT, HCSB have done the same thing. Only the ESV appears to be making much headway, here, from what I can see.

Yet the Christian public continues to buy many more NIVs than TNIVs, more NJKVs, more KJVs, etc., even if one were to overlook such things as study BIbles, etc., and the TNIV is barely making a dent in the sales of the NIV, KJV, and NKJV, specifically the NIV, as that is the one you mentioned. Why is this?

Could it be because somehow for some reason, they simply 'prefer' the renderings of the NIV? I suggest that is exactly one good reason - simple preference. And one preference is not necessarily any better than another, here, for it is again, only one's own opinion. Remember, I am not overall any great fan of the NIV, as I state again, FTR.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

The publisher/owner of the NIV and TNIV have made a tremendous marketing and PR campaign for the TNIV as a 'replacement' and as an 'improved' and 'superior version', to the NIV, IMO.

You are entirely wrong here. "Tremendous marketing and PR campaign"?! Come on. There has been remarkably little momentum from Zondervan in pushing the TNIV. There has been too little support. TNIV fans such as myself have been disappointed at its weak support. New commentaries, doctrinal studies etc. have, for the most part continued to use the NIV as a base translation. The TNIV has been virtually abandoned.

The PR campaigns behind the NLTse and ESV have been fully engaged. That stands in stark contrast with the tepid "support" which the TNIV receives from its parent.

 

[gb93433]

You are entirely wrong here. "Tremendous marketing and PR campaign"?! Come on. There has been remarkably little momentum from Zondervan in pushing the TNIV. There has been too little support. TNIV fans such as myself have been disappointed at its weak support. New commentaries, doctrinal studies etc. have, for the most part continued to use the NIV as a base translation. The TNIV has been virtually abandoned.

The PR campaigns behind the NLTse and ESV have been fully engaged. That stands in stark contrast with the tepid "support" which the TNIV receives from its parent.

Wasn't it the TNIV that there a lot of publicity against?