PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The New International Version



poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 03:17 AM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

Amos_with_goats
Jan 18th 2009, 03:24 AM
Poochie,

I am glad you are fed from the NIV.

Not sure what your question is in that post...?

I am not a fan of the NIV. (Nearly Inspired Version).. :D (jk)

I like to study the KJV, and sometimes the NKJV. I am not a KJV only guy, as I do not believe it is the words written on the page that make scripture 'quick and living' but the Spirit, and the Word!

I do not find the power, or the poetry in the NIV.

I would love to read the original Hebrew, and to a lesser extent the original Greek. I do enjoy the little bits of research into the original languages I have done, and I find they have never taken anytihng away from scripture... rather adding to it.

Blessings,

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 03:47 AM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

There are translational inaccuracies in all of the various versions. This includes the KJV as well. I think the main concern with some of newer translations is that they are based on what many feel to be "corrupted manuscripts"

The KJV is based on the "recieved text" complied by Erasmus:

excerpt from Peter van Minden:

"The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516. A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own."

The newer versions including the NIV were based on Westcott and Horts compilation or Tischendorf's with some having the benefit of the earlier Chester Beatty manuscripts thrown in:

"Tischendorf and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two" rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts. The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.
In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."


My conclusion is that all the translations reflect the foundational doctrines in the way that God intended and that no doctrine of the new testement is seriously affected by the differences. I still use the KJV much of the time but I have the liberty to study them all. At last count I think I have 30 different ones as well as copies of all the various manuscripts.

I'm sure some KJV poeplem will respond about the diffrences in the two main collections of manuscripts in Col. For example:
Col 1:14

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
KJV

Col 1:14
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NIV


As you can see the NIV leaves out "blood" in this verse but it has it in other passages so it's not as if the doctrine of blood atonement is abolished by the NIV. However, read whick ever one you are comfortable with.

poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 04:46 AM
This is not the POINT of my topic. But regardless James White explains the reasoning behind the NIV on the blood verse (Col 1:14) but its not only the NIV that leaves it out, but also the ESV. After I studied the evidences I saw that the NIV and ESV translate the passage correctly.



There are translational inaccuracies in all of the various versions. This includes the KJV as well. I think the main concern with some of newer translations is that they are based on what many feel to be "corrupted manuscripts"

The KJV is based on the "recieved text" complied by Erasmus:

excerpt from Peter van Minden:

"The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516. A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own."

The newer versions including the NIV were based on Westcott and Horts compilation or Tischendorf's with some having the benefit of the earlier Chester Beatty manuscripts thrown in:

"Tischendorf and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two" rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts. The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.
In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."


My conclusion is that all the translations reflect the foundational doctrines in the way that God intended and that no doctrine of the new testement is seriously affected by the differences. I still use the KJV much of the time but I have the liberty to study them all. At last count I think I have 30 different ones as well as copies of all the various manuscripts.

I'm sure some KJV poeplem will respond about the diffrences in the two main collections of manuscripts in Col. For example:
Col 1:14

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
KJV

Col 1:14
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NIV


As you can see the NIV leaves out "blood" in this verse but it has it in other passages so it's not as if the doctrine of blood atonement is abolished by the NIV. However, read whick ever one you are comfortable with.

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 04:58 AM
This is not the POINT of my topic. But regardless James White explains the reasoning behind the NIV on the blood verse (Col 1:14) but its not only the NIV that leaves it out, but also the ESV. After I studied the evidences I saw that the NIV and ESV translate the passage correctly.


You said this:

Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV.

I was just offering a suggestion as to why they might frown. The point I was making is that all of the translations are acceptable. I can't find one that violates any major doctrine and I have most of them. The only notable exception is my copy of the JW's kingdom translation of new testament greek.

poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 11:54 AM
They frown because they were raised in anti NIV churches and cultures. I was not as I grew up in a New-Evangelical background.

Its interesting that they frown upon the NIV, when the ESV translates things very similar in many areas.

I'll never forget in a Theology course one instructor was downplaying the NIV for a particular verse, when I had the NIV and the ESV side by side in my computer Bible and told the class that the ESV translated this one verse (cant remember) the exact same way! The teacher was surprised!



You said this:


I was just offering a suggestion as to why they might frown. The point I was making is that all of the translations are acceptable. I can't find one that violates any major doctrine and I have most of them. The only notable exception is my copy of the JW's kingdom translation of new testament greek.

Psalms Fan
Jan 18th 2009, 03:50 PM
I tend to lean towards the set of texts behind the modern versions as being the more reliable texts. But that aside, no matter what texts are used we're not going to get a perfect translation.

The LXX was not a perfect translation, but the apostles quoted it to establish doctrine and called it "scripture".

The NIV can be used to establish doctrine, and I firmly believe that it is "scripture". Same goes for the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NAB, JB, etc.

Not that I'm any kind of scholar, and I know that my opinion really holds very little water, but the NIV has my endorsement.

thepenitent
Jan 18th 2009, 10:37 PM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

I'll be getting a good dose of NIV over the next year. I wanted to use a chronological Bible for my daily "read the Bible in a year" readings this year. The most economically priced chronological Bible which fit the bill was an NIV translation. It didn't bother me as I have nothing against the NIV but it isn't my first preference. It's probably best suited for this type of "big picture" story driven reading of the Bible.

JesusMySavior
Jan 18th 2009, 11:24 PM
Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


Micah 5:2

My trusty NKJV says

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

NIV says :

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%205:2;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22636a)] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
[B]from ancient times."


So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

Mine says,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


NIV says,

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

1 John 5:6-8...


NKJV

"This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


NIV


"This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Huh??


Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


:)

AndrewBaptistFL
Jan 18th 2009, 11:37 PM
I enjoy my NIV. It's what I was raised on so it is the most familiar to me. It also makes me feel like God's word is in my own language.

Psalms Fan
Jan 18th 2009, 11:43 PM
Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


Micah 5:2

My trusty NKJV says

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

NIV says :

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%205:2;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22636a)] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
[B]from ancient times."


So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

Mine says,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


NIV says,

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

1 John 5:6-8...


NKJV

"This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


NIV


"This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Huh??


Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


:)

I really don't think this was the intention of the OP. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue in a separate thread devoted to this topic.

But to respond to your post . . . Nuh-uh! :bounce:

Ixthus
Jan 19th 2009, 12:13 AM
I don't like to use the NIV because some of the translations are iffy.....but for the majority of the time I believe its accurate. My preference is the NKJV or the Greek New Testament/Septuagint

poochie
Jan 19th 2009, 02:10 AM
Problem is, that I know better and after having studied the textual issues and data I can vouch that the NIV and modern translations are using the more reliable of manuscript evidences. Take the Johanna comma that was inserted by Erasamus for example which is contained in both KJV/NKJV.

And another verse that the NIV translators WISELY removed.

Jer 18:21 (KJV) Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.

Jer 18:21 (ESV) Therefore deliver up their children to famine;
give them over to the power of the sword;
let their wives become childless and widowed.
May their men meet death by pestilence,
their youths be struck down by the sword in battle.

Jer 18:21 (NIV) So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.

If you read the KJVO Controversy by James White will you see the many textual issues in the KJV and the reasons why the NIV and other modern translations are using more recent and reliable manuscript evidences and therefore provider a more accurate translation from the original tongues.





Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


Micah 5:2

My trusty NKJV says

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

NIV says :

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%205:2;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22636a)] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
[B]from ancient times."


So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

Mine says,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


NIV says,

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

1 John 5:6-8...


NKJV

"This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


NIV


"This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Huh??


Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


:)

poochie
Jan 19th 2009, 02:12 AM
It was not. But like usual... We wont go there...


I really don't think this was the intention of the OP. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue in a separate thread devoted to this topic.

But to respond to your post . . . Nuh-uh! :bounce:

Yukerboy
Jan 19th 2009, 09:01 AM
1 Corinthians 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

I use the NIV to read, the KJV to study, and other versions to refer to (ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc..).

I find the best thing for me is the above and, as the verse I opened up with shows, using the version another is more comfortable with is always my goal.

If someone says to me "I only believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God", then though I disagree, I won't argue. I would then use the KJV to back what I say.

TrustGzus
Jan 19th 2009, 03:06 PM
If someone says to me "I only believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God", then though I disagree, I won't argue. I would then use the KJV to back what I say.Nicely said. This is a good tactic. I will argue with them because I think that position has hindered a lot of people (including many who hold that position). However, like you, if I'm discussing some doctrine with a person and KJV is all they recognize, then KJV is what I'll use.

I even try to do this with Jehovah's Witnesses. It's best to make a point if you can do it with the New World Translation. Of course, this can be difficult because they have changed so many verses that contradict their theology.

TrustGzus
Jan 19th 2009, 03:16 PM
Hey Poochie,

I book that supports the NIV that is excellent is The Challenge of Bible Translation (http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Bible-Translation-Kenneth-Barker/dp/0310246857). The two books you mentioned I've read only one (James White's) though I have the other on my Amazon wish list. Those are lay level. This one is much more academic but very thorough. I have it and it's a very good read.

Joe

poochie
Jan 20th 2009, 12:07 AM
Thanks so much for this book. I added it to my list of books to buy one day. I looked at Amazon and I strongly despise the TNIV. The book sounds to be in favor of that corrupt translation.


Hey Poochie,

I book that supports the NIV that is excellent is The Challenge of Bible Translation (http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Bible-Translation-Kenneth-Barker/dp/0310246857). The two books you mentioned I've read only one (James White's) though I have the other on my Amazon wish list. Those are lay level. This one is much more academic but very thorough. I have it and it's a very good read.

Joe

TrustGzus
Jan 20th 2009, 04:30 AM
Poochie,

Have you examined the TNIV for yourself or are you only going off of single verses isolated from context by CBMW? I like Wayne Grudem and own a handful of books from him including his Systematic Theology, but I find Wayne very imbalanced in his critique of the TNIV. By the way, Wayne doesn't like the NIV either. Don't let his title to his article make you think he approves the NIV but disapproves the TNIV. He disapproves both.

Grace & peace,

Joe

Nanoson
Jan 20th 2009, 05:21 AM
out of all the versions i've read i the niv is ranked three on my list.
before that
2. king james
1. original hebrew (would not recondmend to those who can't read hebrew)

Jemand
Jan 20th 2009, 06:08 AM
The NIV is too paraphrastic and too theologically biased for me to seriously consider it in my study of the Scriptures. For serious Bible study and to resolve questions regarding the interpretation of Biblical passages I rely mostly on the Hebrew and Greek texts, and secondarily upon the most accurate translations of the Bible into English, that is, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB. I sometimes also consult the NAB and the NJB. A good book on Bible translations that treats the NIV in a somewhat objective manner is:

Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV to NIV, A History and Evaluation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982. 451 pages.

Here is a link to a directory of hundreds of online studies of very many different English Bible Versions going all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon Caedmon Manuscript. Links to where the text of many of these versions can be read online are also provided. This directory was updated in August, 2008:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html)

Jemand
Jan 20th 2009, 06:21 AM
Here is a link to a good review of the NIV:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html)

Here is a link to a good review of the TNIV:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html)

poochie
Jan 20th 2009, 11:24 AM
I have looked at it a little. I do not like translating "children" instead of sons. Does not seem Biblical. Grudem contributed to the ESV Study Bible and perhaps does not like the NIV. You know more than me about him.

I do know that there are NIV haters and bashers out there many in Fundamentalism and even some in this board. They will make statements like the following.

The NIV is for new Christians
The NIV compromises the Word of God
etc..

However in many areas I find the NIV easier to read and understand and in no way compromising essential doctrine. I am striving to read through the Bible this year and ran into a verse or two that I sure wish were translated differently by the ESV.

In Genesis the ESV often says that "so and so knew his wife, and bore a son."

The NIV says that "so and so lay with his wife and bore a son."

There are many other examples throughout the text of where the Dynamic NIV would be ideal and translating literally from the original texts only confuses the reader.

I know I am going to read the OT in the ESV, not sure about the NT. I may read from the ESV and then jump back to the NIV.


Poochie,

Have you examined the TNIV for yourself or are you only going off of single verses isolated from context by CBMW? I like Wayne Grudem and own a handful of books from him including his Systematic Theology, but I find Wayne very imbalanced in his critique of the TNIV. By the way, Wayne doesn't like the NIV either. Don't let his title to his article make you think he approves the NIV but disapproves the TNIV. He disapproves both.

Grace & peace,

Joe

TrustGzus
Jan 20th 2009, 03:52 PM
I have looked at it a little. I do not like translating "children" instead of sons. Does not seem Biblical. Grudem contributed to the ESV Study Bible and perhaps does not like the NIV. You know more than me about him.Hey Poochie,

And here is the problem with so many of the critics of the TNIV. The KJV translates "children" instead of sons over 1500 times in the Old Testament.

Thus, a lot of TNIV critics are showing a bias. It's okay for the KJV to do it (and in many cases the ESV too), but it's not okay for the TNIV to do it where the KJV and ESV didn't do, yet it's perfectly justified in those cases.
I do know that there are NIV haters and bashers out there many in Fundamentalism and even some in this board. They will make statements like the following.

The NIV is for new Christians
The NIV compromises the Word of God
etc..

However in many areas I find the NIV easier to read and understand and in no way compromising essential doctrine. I am striving to read through the Bible this year and ran into a verse or two that I sure wish were translated differently by the ESV.

In Genesis the ESV often says that "so and so knew his wife, and bore a son."

The NIV says that "so and so lay with his wife and bore a son."

There are many other examples throughout the text of where the Dynamic NIV would be ideal and translating literally from the original texts only confuses the reader.

I know I am going to read the OT in the ESV, not sure about the NT. I may read from the ESV and then jump back to the NIV.I agree with everything else you've said. Grudem is much more than just a contributor to the ESV Study Bible. He's also a member of the translation oversight committee (http://www.esv.org/translation/committee). I read through the Bible every year - OT once and NT twice. I read the ESV in 2007 and the TNIV in 2008. I enjoyed the ESV. But I grew up on KJV and NKJV so I don't struggle with more formal versions. I can't see it being the ideal Bible for the average reader.

I thought the TNIV was outstanding. Keep in mind the TNIV only changed the NIV in 7% of places and the gender issues that people are screaming about only account for 2% of that 7%. In most places where it made changes, it improved on the NIV. However, due to the war that was declared on it by CBMW and others in World magazine who think it's okay for the ESV to use inclusive language, but not the TNIV, many haven't looked at it and given it a fair shake.

However, many respectable names have given a thumbs-up to the TNIV including:


John Armstrong
Stuart Briscoe
Jim Cymbala
Bill Hybels
John Ortberg
John Stott
Lee Strobel
Philip Yancey
Craig Blomberg
Darrell Bock
D. A. Carson
Timothy George
Michael Green
John Kohlenberger III
Mark Strauss
Warren Wiersbe

Some of those aren't scholars and so don't make as much as an impact. Jim Cymbala is in that category. He's popular and inspiring, but not a scholar. However, take note of men like Blomberg, Bock and Carson. It's also interesting to note that Blomberg and Bock were advisery scholars for the ESV -- they weren't translators, but they were advisery scholars.

If you'd be willing to read a lengthy, but helpful review - here's a link to a review of the TNIV by Craig Blomberg (http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Blomberg.pdf#search=%22TNIV%20Untold%20Story%22). The great thing about guys like Blomberg and Carson is they aren't part of the TNIV translation work. They get paid nothing for anything to do with the TNIV. So there's no financial agenda they could be accused of. As a result, their reviews tell so many of the good things of the TNIV, yet at the same time, they don't pull punches and tell you where changes didn't improve.

I enjoy both the ESV and the TNIV. I like Grudem and I like Strauss and others involved with the TNIV. So I had "heroes" you could say on both sides. So I spent a decent time researching this. I have a lot more material and would be glad to talk about any concerns you have or particular verses. That Blomberg article is a great start.

Grace & peace to you, Poochie,

Joe

BadDog
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:38 AM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..poochie,

Well, I can suggest a book, which probably will need to be ordered online, and also a seminary professor for whom I have much respect (Darrell Boch - DTS) and who has written some articles online at www.bible.org.

Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow (Callow has a PhD in Linguistics - they both are highly respected translators of God's Word.)

The book is a heavy one - designed to help translators, not the layman.

Go to bible.org, select the "List Articles" tab and select to list articles by author (choose Darrell Boch). I suggest the article, "Do Gender Sensitive Translations Distort Scripture? Not Necessarily."

The NIV is an excellent translation. (It is not one of my favorites, but that is because of its reformed bias, IMO.) I do not want to get into the KJVO stuff, nor send this thread down that rabbit trail. Permit me to make a few general comments regarding translation, in general:


Translation needs to accurately communicate the intended meaning from the source language (Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic).
Translation needs to accurately communicate the intended meaning into the target language (English).
Not just the words, but the phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and language signposts (such as "therefore, "now" etc.) need to be accurately communicated from the source language into the target language.
Meaning is king. (Meanings of words must take a backseat to the overall meaning intended by the Spirit in the paragraphs, sentences, etc..)
Words often have a wide range of meanings. Context is key here to determining what meaning was intended by the author.
Tenses need to be carefully translated. This does not just mean "past, present, future," but the kind of action is actually more important. (For example, point-in-time kind of action or linear kind of action.)
In Greek, word order serves to indicate emphasis. The order of translation into English should be selected so as to read more easily in the target language rather than woodenly follow the word and phrase order in the source language.
Bottom-line: accuracy does not mean more word-for-word wooden translation, but is determined by several items (see above). Accuracy does not mean more word-for-word. It involves communicating what was intended to its readers.

Typically when translating more word-for-word you inevitably end up in a less accurate translation since the readers misunderstand, or fail to understand at all, the intended meaning. Some judgments and evaluations of the source text is required by translators. It is an art... not simply "transcribing" one word from one language into another. Of course, one can translate too pariphrastically such that you end up with poor communication of intended meaning from the source language into the target language as well. Balance is required.

Oh, very nice comments TrustGzus. I too prefer the TNIV over the NIV--it's a little more literal, but definitely more accurate. BTW, the 2% which deals with gender issues is not 2% of 7%, but 2% total. (7% total changes, 2/7 of that is the gender-inclusive type changes). I'm sure about this, FYI, as I got deeply involved in this whole issue a few years ago.

Take care,

BD

TrustGzus
Jan 22nd 2009, 04:41 AM
Oh, very nice comments TrustGzus. I too prefer the TNIV over the NIV--it's a little more literal, but definitely more accurate. BTW, the 2% which deals with gender issues is not 2% of 7%, but 2% total. (7% total changes, 2/7 of that is the gender-inclusive type changes). I'm sure about this, FYI, as I got deeply involved in this whole issue a few years ago.So good to see you on here, BadDog. What you said is what I meant. Poor wording on my part. Thanks for clarifying that.

Trailblazer
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:19 PM
this can be difficult because they have changed so many verses that contradict their theology.

Kinda like...Origen and Clement...and Wescott and Hort.

:spin:

JimC in NM
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:16 AM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

Poochie, sorry, but my real reply will have to wait until this weekend. I am very fond of the NIV, (but NOT the TNIV). I actually did a fair amount of research before I settled on the (1984) NIV. There was a lot of work, done in a very scholarly manner to produce the NIV. I will do my best to share why I like this translation. Until then, may God bless you. :)

shepherdsword
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:25 AM
They frown because they were raised in anti NIV churches and cultures. I was not as I grew up in a New-Evangelical background.

Its interesting that they frown upon the NIV, when the ESV translates things very similar in many areas.

I'll never forget in a Theology course one instructor was downplaying the NIV for a particular verse, when I had the NIV and the ESV side by side in my computer Bible and told the class that the ESV translated this one verse (cant remember) the exact same way! The teacher was surprised!

I have the ESV because it's included in my bible software(I have an awesome program) I have heard that the ESV was a response by Dr James Dobsen to the NIV translation. I think the reason was the NIV's gender neutral position in may verses. Although I'm not sure.

Jemand
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:37 PM
According to the original 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.” This statement should raise some very large and bright red flags in the minds of the readers because it marks a serious and extremely dangerous departure from the historical philosophy of Bible translation. Prior to the NIV, the first concern of most translators of the Bible had been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the original Biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Determining the “thought of the Biblical writers” is a very subjective process that is based upon one’s own theological preferences. Since the NIV is primarily the work of Reformed Biblical scholars with some help from a wide spectrum of theologically conservative Biblical scholars, the end result has been a translation of the Bible in the Reformed tradition.

If Reformed theology is Biblical theology, this may all be well and good; but if it is not, if it is in reality an aberration of Biblical theology, the NIV presents to its readers a translation of the Bible engineered to teach aberrational theology.

In my opinion, it is NOT the job of Bible translators to determine the “thought of the Biblical writers;” the job of Bible translators to determine as objectively as possible the concepts expressed by the words and phrases of the Bible in their original language and written context, as well as the chronological, cultural, and theological context.

The New Testament portion of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) was first published in 1963 and the complete Bible in 1971. The NASB was produced by the Lockman Foundation, a Corporation Not for Profit, and in the original preface we read, in part:


THE FOURFOLD AIM OF THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION

1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses).
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.

Even with very little advertising, the NASB rapidly grew in popularity among conservative, evangelical Christians who were very unhappy with the Revised Standard Version because of its theologically liberal stance but who wanted a very accurate translation of the Bible in contemporary English.

During this time, however, the Christian Reformed Church was already exploring along with the National Association of Evangelicals the feasibility of producing another translation of the Bible in contemporary English; in 1973 the New Testament portion of the NIV was published by Zondervan Bible Publishers and in 1978 the whole Bible by the same publisher. Unlike the Lockman Foundation, Zondervan Bible Publishers’ goal was to earn a huge profit by getting as large of a market share as possible. Attacking the KJV was out of the question and the RSV was in a very different market so they went after the NASB, calling it a wooden translation that was difficult to read and understand. They especially argued that the accuracy of a Bible translation depends upon the ability of people to understand it and they spent millions of dollars persuading conservative evangelicals that this falsehood was true.

The NASB is a much more precise translation than the NIV. It much more accurately and consistently translates Greek verb forms in the New Testament and pays very close attention to the Greek syntax. It is translated at the 11th grade reading level and therefore requires of many of its readers a little bit of effort.

The translators of the NIV, however, with their first concern being its fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers, paid much less attention to accurately and consistently translating Greek verb forms in the New Testament and produced a much less accurate translation. They argued, however, that since their translation was made at the 7th grade reading level, it was much easier to understand and that its readers would therefore much more accurately understand it. The problem is, however, that they are more easily understanding the NIV translation of the Bible but not necessarily the original message.

Let’s take a closer look at this problem. If the NIV is 80% accurate and the readers read it with 90% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 72% accurate. If the NASB is 95% accurate and the readers read it with 80% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 76% accurate, a small but significant improvement. If, however, the NASB is 95% accurate and the readers, with a little extra effort, read it with 95% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 90.25% accurate, a very substantial improvement! And, of course, no matter how carefully and studiously they read the NIV, their understanding of the original message will never be greater than 80%.

Thank you for reading my post. May God bless you!

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:40 PM
out of all the versions i've read i the niv is ranked three on my list.
before that
2. king james
1. original hebrew (would not recondmend to those who can't read hebrew)


I am with you on this one. I contsantly tell people to read things in a language they can actually read. I always take it further and tell them not to have conversations in languages they know nothing about.

chad
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:55 PM
Here is some information from the Preface of the Zondervan NIV Study Bible that I use.

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

It had its beginning in 1965 when, after years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the bible in contemporary English.

This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was trans-denominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.

Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries.

In 1967 the New York Bible Society (Now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project-a sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars.

The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations-including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches-helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.

How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication.

In this way the entire bible went through three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original language and for its English style.

All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one.

From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use.

BadDog
Jan 25th 2009, 01:34 AM
According to the original 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.” This statement should raise some very large and bright red flags in the minds of the readers because it marks a serious and extremely dangerous departure from the historical philosophy of Bible translation. Prior to the NIV, the first concern of most translators of the Bible had been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the original Biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Determining the “thought of the Biblical writers” is a very subjective process that is based upon one’s own theological preferences. Since the NIV is primarily the work of Reformed Biblical scholars with some help from a wide spectrum of theologically conservative Biblical scholars, the end result has been a translation of the Bible in the Reformed tradition.

If Reformed theology is Biblical theology, this may all be well and good; but if it is not, if it is in reality an aberration of Biblical theology, the NIV presents to its readers a translation of the Bible engineered to teach aberrational theology.
In my opinion, it is NOT the job of Bible translators to determine the “thought of the Biblical writers;” the job of Bible translators to determine as objectively as possible the concepts expressed by the words and phrases of the Bible in their original language and written context, as well as the chronological, cultural, and theological context.

Let’s take a closer look at this problem. If the NIV is 80% accurate and the readers read it with 90% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 72% accurate. If the NASB is 95% accurate and the readers read it with 80% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 76% accurate, a small but significant improvement. If, however, the NASB is 95% accurate and the readers, with a little extra effort, read it with 95% accuracy, their understanding of the original message will be 90.25% accurate, a very substantial improvement! And, of course, no matter how carefully and studiously they read the NIV, their understanding of the original message will never be greater than 80%.
Thank you for reading my post. May God bless you![/b]
FA: some snipped above.

Jemand,

While I agree with many of your points above, I actually fail to see the difference between "fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers" and "fidelity to the original Biblical texts." They should be the same. How could they not be? In inspiration the Spirit uses the thoughts, emotions, styles to accomplish precisely what He intended to communicate. A more wooden style of translation has a tendency to focus too much on the words themselves, at times missing the intended meaning of the Spirit, who communicates with sentences, paragraphs, and not just words.

What the NIV translators are trying to communicate here is that one does not simply translate in a void, without considering the geographical, political etc. background within which the writers wrote - as inspired through the Holy Spirit.

Now I agree with much of what you say which I underlined above. One does need to be careful to not bring your own biases into the translation, and I also consider the NIV to have a slight Reformed bias. (The CBT, Committee for Bible Translation, supposedly attempted to keep a balance among translators for the NIV, but I don't think they completely succeeded. I do know a couple of those involved in the endorsement committees, and they were non-Reformed Baptists, so an attempt was made for theological balance, as Chad says above.) The RCA (Reformed Churches of America) was behind the NIV. Personally, I think it has perhaps the best balance between dynamic equivalency (meaning based) and formal equivalency (structure, words based).

One concern I have is estimating the relative accuracy of the translation work of the NASB at 95% and the NIV at only 80%. Why should the NASB be significantly more accurate than the NIV? Wooden word-for-word translation does not mean greater accuracy. It is my contention that one actually loses accuracy when one does that. Balance is needed. The NIV has reached a good balance point, IMO. My issue with the NIV is the Reformed bias.

Some prefer something more formal equivalent (FE) and others something more dynamic equivalent (DE) or as translators prefer to refer to it "meaning based." We are all different, and IMO the Spirit has led many men and women of God to translate with a different focus on what the Spirit is communicating.

If you were to poll all of those doing translation work today I am absolutely certain than they would overwhelmingly cite the NIV as more accurate than the NASB (or KJV). Overwhelmingly. (I'm a member of the Bible Translation e-group, and their opinions in this area are obvious if you just read their emails.) I personally prefer a bit more wooden translation than the NIV, my preference is the HCSB, which is a little more formal equivalent than the NIV. I have used the NASB for decades. But translation is not simply a word-for-word affair.

Thx,

BD

jrepp
Jan 25th 2009, 08:45 AM
And you wonder why non-Christians laugh at the whole thing?


(Luk 9:50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

OldChurchGuy
Jan 25th 2009, 12:59 PM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

I have had an NIV Study Bible since 1985 and love it as it was the first Study Bible I found that had footnotes showing alternative translations. For example, 666 in Revelation 13 has a footnote explaining some early manuscripts have 616.

Any Study Bible confident enough in it's translation to show alternatives or admit a given word or phrase cannot be easily translated is a superior Bible in my opinion.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

TrustGzus
Jan 25th 2009, 06:14 PM
And you wonder why non-Christians laugh at the whole thing?


(Luk 9:50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.Hey jrepp,

What do you mean by this? When I talk to non-Christians, they are usually very uninformed on issues of Bible translation and aren't even aware of the fact that there is a multiplicity of English translations -- again that's in general, not always -- some very few are aware. The culture's views are formed by fiction such as The DaVinci Code much more often than it's formed by scholarship.

What from this conversation do you think the non-Christians would laugh at?

Grace & peace to you,

Jo

SnakeWesker
Jan 25th 2009, 07:04 PM
I use the NIV, and my church uses the ESV. I personally like them both the same. I really like my NIV because I bought it at Barnes and Noble and it has a nice leatherish cover and gold pages. So it looks nice!

FoG
Jan 25th 2009, 08:23 PM
I use a parallel with KJV and NIV and love it.

JimC in NM
Jan 25th 2009, 11:14 PM
Poochie, first let me say, I hadn’t seen the other replies to your question about the NIV before I posted that I would be giving a reply this weekend. Many of those other posts have already pointed you to some of the sources I had in mind, so I won’t repeat them here. I especially appreciate BadDog & Chad's posts.
I do like, and use, the 1984 edition of the NIV. I spent a fair amount of time back in the late 80’s, long before the TNIV controversy, looking for a translation that was both accurate in expressing the thought and intent of the original authors, and was easier to read and understand. I settled on the NIV. The NIV is a “thought for thought” translation, not a “word for word” translation. I think that is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Had it been done by one denomination, or one or two people, I would be more concerned about the thoughts being the translator's, not the author's.
Since I was looking for a translation that set as one of it’s goals, to make an accurate “thought for thought” translation, that moved me toward the NIV.
I am not Catholic, and a translation that was “reformed” or “protestant” in nature was also a natural choice. I think that is a move back toward the true message. I don’t apologize or debate that choice. The NIV filled that requirement.
The translation I sought, shouldn’t be inclined toward any particular denominational bias. The number of scholars and translation committees, representing numerous denominations, that checked and cross-checked and then re-cross-checked each other to insure accuracy while keeping out denominational bias or dogma also influenced my decision. Those committee goals have been mentioned in more detail in previous posts in this thread. I’m a Southern Baptist by choice, and while I do like the Holman translation, I have reservations about the SBC’s stated goal to have a translation that it could exercise more “control” over, when it shied away from the NIV during the TNIV controversy. Prior to that, the NIV was widely used, accepted and endorsed by many Southern Baptists. My thought was, "why did the TNIV make the 1984 NIV less acceptable?". Zondervan still produces both.
The NIV used many different sources of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts to attempt to get the most accurate “thought for thought” translation, again striving for fidelity to the author’s intent. Many translations do not take much into account the social and cultural factors of the era in which the author was writing. These factors have an impact on the context and the author’s intent. The NIV does seem to do this.
Lastly, and I know this is getting long, but the criticism that the NIV doesn’t have the “majesty”, stylistic and poetic “eloquence”, or "power" of many of the other translations, rings rather hollow with me. To many people, speaking in a Shakespearian manner may be perceived to be more “eloquent”, but what I care about is the message. Few would argue that we go through a constant barrage of political speeches that say little, but do so very “eloquently”. “Eloquence” carries very little weight with me. The real "power" is in the simple truth of the message. If I confuse the heart of the message with the manner in which it is delivered, I will have a hard time reaching my goal of better understanding God’s Word, and His Will in my life. For me, the NIV delivers the heart of the message very well.
I would also disagree with those that contend the NIV is for “beginners” or novices. I not only use the NIV, I consult the KJV, NKJV, Holman’s, NASB, William’s (New Testament) Beck’s (New Testament), and an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. I've been a Christian for over 40 years, and studied for the ministry when I was younger. I don't think most people that know me would consider me a "beginner", or my understanding or reading ability to be at a "seventh grade" level.
If you are comfortable with the NIV, I would suggest you stick with it. You are going to study a translation that you are comfortable reading much more diligently than one with which you have to struggle. May God bless you.

Izdaari
Jan 27th 2009, 01:13 AM
I use the NIV, and my church uses the ESV. I personally like them both the same. I really like my NIV because I bought it at Barnes and Noble and it has a nice leatherish cover and gold pages. So it looks nice!
My NIV Study Bible is the prettiest bible I own. It's reddish-brown alligator-textured European leather, with a black spine and silver-edged pages. It's not my favorite to read (I do like to read it, it's just not the first one I reach for), but it sure is my favorite to look at.

I prefer the ESV, HCSB and TNIV over the NIV, but the differences are small, and I like them all well enough.

Izdaari
Jan 27th 2009, 01:19 AM
I have had an NIV Study Bible since 1985 and love it as it was the first Study Bible I found that had footnotes showing alternative translations. For example, 666 in Revelation 13 has a footnote explaining some early manuscripts have 616.

Any Study Bible confident enough in it's translation to show alternatives or admit a given word or phrase cannot be easily translated is a superior Bible in my opinion.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
That's an excellent thought. I like notes that do that too. :pp

Jemand
Jan 27th 2009, 01:43 AM
Jemand,


While I agree with many of your points above, I actually fail to see the difference between "fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers" and "fidelity to the original Biblical texts." They should be the same. How could they not be? In inspiration the Spirit uses the thoughts, emotions, styles to accomplish precisely what He intended to communicate. A more wooden style of translation has a tendency to focus too much on the words themselves, at times missing the intended meaning of the Spirit, who communicates with sentences, paragraphs, and not just words.

BadDog,

Thank you for your courteous reply. I see a huge and very dangerous difference between “fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers” and “fidelity to the original Biblical texts.” If the translator assumes that the thoughts of the Biblical writers were in accord with his own personal theological perspective, when expressing those thoughts in English, he is going to express them in accord with that theological perspective. When the final editorial committee is firmly persuaded of the truth and accuracy of their theological perspective and that perspective is narrow and rigid, that narrowness and rigidness is going to influence the translation.



What the NIV translators are trying to communicate here is that one does not simply translate in a void, without considering the geographical, political etc. background within which the writers wrote - as inspired through the Holy Spirit.

I disagree. They are attempting to justify their translation philosophy—a translation philosophy that was developed for translating the Bible into languages with a very limited vocabulary used by a culture radically unfamiliar with the cultures of the Old and New Testaments. That philosophy should have no place in English language translations because the English language has the largest vocabulary of all languages and the readers have ready access to Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries that explain the cultures of the Old and New Testaments.



Now I agree with much of what you say which I underlined above. One does need to be careful to not bring your own biases into the translation, and I also consider the NIV to have a slight Reformed bias. (The CBT, Committee for Bible Translation, supposedly attempted to keep a balance among translators for the NIV, but I don't think they completely succeeded. I do know a couple of those involved in the endorsement committees, and they were non-Reformed Baptists, so an attempt was made for theological balance, as Chad says above.) The RCA (Reformed Churches of America) was behind the NIV. Personally, I think it has perhaps the best balance between dynamic equivalency (meaning based) and formal equivalency (structure, words based).

One concern I have is estimating the relative accuracy of the translation work of the NASB at 95% and the NIV at only 80%. Why should the NASB be significantly more accurate than the NIV? Wooden word-for-word translation does not mean greater accuracy. It is my contention that one actually loses accuracy when one does that. Balance is needed. The NIV has reached a good balance point, IMO. My issue with the NIV is the Reformed bias.

The Reformed bias of the translators does not bother me nearly as much as does the lack of precision in the translators’ translation of Greek verb forms (when the verb is translated at all rather than completely omitted in the process of recasting the sentence) and other elements of Greek syntax. I am very much aware of the difference between the Greek and English verb systems and the very strong emphasis of aspect over time in Greek tenses, but when I read the NASB, even if I do not recall the verb form used in the Greek text, I have a good idea of what it is based upon the English verb form used in the NASB. That is not at all the case when reading the NIV. And, of course, having a good idea of the verb form in the original gives me a more accurate understanding of the action being described there.

In very much of the early advertising of the NIV by Zondervan, they admitted that the NASB is a more accurate translation when read by readers with the necessary education to understand it, but they strenuously argued that most readers of the Bible do not have that education and are therefore confused when reading the NASB, giving them a less accurate understanding of the Bible than when they read a translation in simplified English that they can understand. However, a more accurate understanding on the part of the reader does not make the translation more accurate—it merely makes it more readable. To put this in another way, a translated work does not become less accurate when read by a man with poor reading skills, nor does it become more accurate when read by a man with good reading skills.



Some prefer something more formal equivalent (FE) and others something more dynamic equivalent (DE) or as translators prefer to refer to it "meaning based." We are all different, and IMO the Spirit has led many men and women of God to translate with a different focus on what the Spirit is communicating.

If you were to poll all of those doing translation work today I am absolutely certain than they would overwhelmingly cite the NIV as more accurate than the NASB (or KJV). Overwhelmingly. (I'm a member of the Bible Translation e-group, and their opinions in this area are obvious if you just read their emails.) I personally prefer a bit more wooden translation than the NIV, my preference is the HCSB, which is a little more formal equivalent than the NIV. I have used the NASB for decades. But translation is not simply a word-for-word affair.

Thx,

BD

We apparently live in two very different worlds. The Bible translators in the world in which I live freely acknowledge that the NASB is a substantially more accurate translation than the NIV even though it does not, in many instances, convey that accuracy to readers with less than a high school education. There are definitely some problems with the NASB, but, in our opinion, they are very less serious and very less numerous than in the NIV. I will concede, however, that the translation philosophy of the translators of the NIV has been rapidly gaining in approval. Perhaps the reason for this fact is that it gives the translators much more liberty with the original language texts and much more freedom to inject their own personal theology into the translation.

The Roman Catholic Church experimented with a dynamic equivalence translation of the Bible and published in 1970 the New American Bible. When the New Testament was revised in 1986, the translators reverted back to a formal equivalence translation.


If the message contained in the donor language is not adequately conveyed in the intended receptor language, the translator has failed. Perhaps we do not all agree as to what the message of the Bible is and how well that message has been conveyed in various translations. The number one criticism of the NASB has been that it is a “wooden translation;” the number one criticism of the NIV has been that it is not an accurate enough translation.

Thank you for reading my posts. May God bless you!

Jemand
Jan 27th 2009, 01:55 AM
I have had an NIV Study Bible since 1985 and love it as it was the first Study Bible I found that had footnotes showing alternative translations. For example, 666 in Revelation 13 has a footnote explaining some early manuscripts have 616.

Any Study Bible confident enough in it's translation to show alternatives or admit a given word or phrase cannot be easily translated is a superior Bible in my opinion.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Most study Bibles have that feature, regardless of the translation it uses. Even the reference editions of the NASB had that feature before there was such a thing as study Bible using the NASB translation. Indeed, even the text edition of the NASB has that feature to a limited extent; so do the text editions of the RSV and the NRSV.

BadDog
Jan 30th 2009, 09:13 PM
Jemand,

Thx for your reply to my last post.

Can you be specific on those Bible translators? In general these days Bible translation has gone to more DE style of translation, there can be no doubt about that. And the NASB is a faithful translation, no doubt about that as well. However, accuracy in translation is not simply a matter of faithfully transcribing noun and verb meanings, context is significant and we must consider the meanings of phrases, sentences, and the paragraph structure indicated by the Greek signposts. I posted earlier with several specific points here.

Now, regarding what you are alluding to in dealing with tenses, I prefer that verbals be translated as verbals and nouns as nouns, and that they not be switched when that can be done so as to communicate accurate to the readers. But that doesn't happen very often in translation.

Following are 2 examples of differences in translation by the NASB, NIV and HCSB:

For example, Galatians 2:20:
NASB: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

NIV: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

HCSB I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh,F18 I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
F18 "the physical body"

A point of interest, the KJV translates this as "I am crucified with Christ," which does not reflect the perfect tense very well. Even the NKJv translates it as "have been crucified." The perfect tense refers to an event which occurred at a point-in-time in the past, with an existing state of action having been completed. "I am crucified" indicates a present tense type of translation. It does represent one portion of the aspect of the perfect tense - that of existing in a state of completed action. But it is very confusing and just not the best translation of the verse.

Now here the NIV translated σάρξ as "body" rather than flesh. Hey, I prefer "flesh." But isn't "body" acceptable?


Another example is Matthew 6:33, where the meaning of προστίθημι is interpreted a bit differently by the following translations in terms of its meaning to the English reader:
NASB: "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added F118 to you.
F118 "or provided"

NIV: But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

HCSB: But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you.

Now let's think about this. If you give someone something in addition to what he has, are you not giving it to him "as well"? OK, I prefer "provided" over "given as well" since the Greek word which is often used meaning "to give" is not used here. Could have been used, so why not translate it a bit differently than give? But one must admit that "added to you" is vague and confusing.

That said, I do agree that the NASB more faithfully translates tenses from the Greek to the English. The issue I have is that they have done so at the risk of misunderstanding of meaning to even educated readers due to its woodenness. It was not wooden in koine Greek. The average reader understood it well, at it was plain Greek, not sophisticated, hence I prefer plain English as well.

How did the Holy Spirit lead the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint? Was it a wooden or more free translation? It was very free. Now, did the Holy Spirit use the Hebrew OT or the LXX (Greek Septuagint) when quoting in the NT?

The Greek Septuagint. The Holy Spirit used a free translation when quoting the OT, rather than the original Hebrew source. Hence IMO overall meaning trumps tense and word-meaning. The LXX was not inspired. It was a translation of 70 Hebrew scholars.

Hence I am not very critical of translators efforts. I believe that they are attempting to be very accurate and consistent; yet they are also concerned that the reader truly understand and actually read their Bible regularly.

You've made some good points Jemand.

Thx,

BD

Jemand
Jan 31st 2009, 06:47 AM
And the NASB is a faithful translation, no doubt about that as well. However, accuracy in translation is not simply a matter of faithfully transcribing noun and verb meanings, context is significant and we must consider the meanings of phrases, sentences, and the paragraph structure indicated by the Greek signposts. I posted earlier with several specific points here.

I agree that accurately translating the Bible is not simply a matter of translating words, but when the translators set aside massive amounts of linguistic data in order to have the freedom to interject their pet theology into a Biblical text, that is something very different than faithfully translating the text. I will address this matter more specifically further on.


Now, regarding what you are alluding to in dealing with tenses, I prefer that verbals be translated as verbals and nouns as nouns, and that they not be switched when that can be done so as to communicate accurate to the readers. But that doesn't happen very often in translation.

I disagree. Even the NIV typically translates verb forms as verb forms and nouns as nouns, but it is very inconsistent in the translation of verb forms, not paying close enough attention to the verb form in the Greek; and it is very inconsistent in translating nouns even when the contexts are the same (see below). And when verbs are not translated at all, leaving it up to the reader’s imagination to supply the action, we find sentences that are easy to read at the expense of New Testament data.


Following are 2 examples of differences in translation by the NASB, NIV and HCSB:


For example, Galatians 2:20:
NASB: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

NIV: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

HCSB I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh,F18 I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
F18 "the physical body"

Now here the NIV translated σάρξ as "body" rather than flesh. Hey, I prefer "flesh." But isn't "body" acceptable?

No, it is not at all acceptable. In first-century Hellenistic thought, the σαρχ (flesh) is the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc. Paul used the word to express that concept, sometimes with emphasis on the material itself, and sometimes with emphasis on the desires for which it is responsible. When these desires were contrary to the desires of God for the man, we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the Spirit, the two often opposing sources of desire. When these desires were contrary to the desires of the intellect, the rational part of man, the νους (mind), we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the mind and its desires (Rom. 7:25).

Christ, in His humanity, shared this material part of man with all men (Rom. 1:3, 8:3), but He never yielded to the desires for which it is responsible. Paul taught that Christians are to identify with Christ through identifying with His death and resurrection, and to yield as Christ did, not to the desires of the flesh that result in sin, but to the desires of the Spirit that result in righteousness.

The Greek word sarx appears approximately 144 times in the Greek New Testament. For centuries, this word had been regularly rendered “flesh” in every major English translation of the Bible, but in 1966 it was rendered “unspiritual nature” in the Jerusalem Bible. The New American Bible (in only a few passages), the New English Bible, and the Good News Bible also introduced similar innovative renderings. The translators of the New International Version, however, took the occasion to teach their theology regarding the depravity of man and his resulting “sinful nature,” in a number of places translating the Greek word sarx as “sinful nature.” However, the Greek word sarx does NOT mean “sinful nature” or anything else that is sinful; and in some passages, this fact is as clear as Baccarat® crystal, making it necessary for the NIV to variously translate the word from verse to verse even when the use of the word remains exactly the same in all of those verses. Let’s look at a few examples, and compare the NASB, 1995, with the NIV:

Rom. 1:3. concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, (NASB, 1995)

Rom. 1:3. regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, (NIV)


Rom. 8:3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB, 1995)

Rom. 8:3. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
4. in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (NIV)


Rom. 8:12. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—
13. for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (NASB, 1995)

Rom. 8:12. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation–but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.
13. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, (NIV)


Rom. 9:5. whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NASB, 1995)

Rom. 9:5. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (NIV)


Col. 1:22. yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— (NASB, 1995)

Col. 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation (NIV)

But compare with v. 24,

Col. 1:24. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. NASB, 1995)

Col. 1:24. Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (NIV)


Col. 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; (NASB, 1995)

Col. 2:11 in him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, (NIV)


In first-century Hellenistic thought, the σωμα (body) is the physical seat of life, typically of people and animals, but also of plants, and the instrument of activity—this latter sense being extended to the Church as the “body of Christ.” These concepts are strikingly different from the concept that Paul expressed in Gal. 2:20 using the Greek word sarx. There, the concept is that of the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc., desires that make a man susceptible to temptation and cause him to be in need of faith in Christ for help with those temptations. Paul has been crucified with Christ, and the man who once gave in to temptations is no longer alive, but the desires of the flesh remain, and Paul now lives victoriously by faith in the Son of God.

20. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (NASB, 1995)

I am out of time for now, but, the Lord willing, I will reply to the rest of your post sometime in the near future.

poochie
Jan 31st 2009, 12:15 PM
NIV bashers and NIV haters always choose to ignore or misunderstand this point.

well for my soul winnign ministry I ordered 15 NIV Gospel of John's and 15 ESV Gospel of John's and Lord willing they will arrive soon. I am ina Fundamentalist area (not KJVO). The ESV is widely accepted on the campus but the NIV is widely frowned upon. We shall see how they respond. I tell people its about TRANSFORMATION and the NIV is easier to understand than the classic KJV or the NASB.


I have had an NIV Study Bible since 1985 and love it as it was the first Study Bible I found that had footnotes showing alternative translations. For example, 666 in Revelation 13 has a footnote explaining some early manuscripts have 616.

Any Study Bible confident enough in it's translation to show alternatives or admit a given word or phrase cannot be easily translated is a superior Bible in my opinion.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

poochie
Jan 31st 2009, 12:22 PM
Amen to your post brother. Yeah those that claim the NIV is for novices and new believers I disagree with as well. Thats another way to bash the translation.

I also use multiple translations and each has strengths and weaknesses.

Yesterday in Old Testament Introduction the teacher pointed out a copyist error in both the KJV and NKJV. We are studying Textual Criticism, Higher Criticism, the Manuscripts, and other issues that the laymen is unfamiliar with. But looking at the NIV the professor said got the text correct as its based on more reliable manscript evidence than the KJV.


“Eloquence” carries very little weight with me. The real "power" is in the simple truth of the message. If I confuse the heart of the message with the manner in which it is delivered, I will have a hard time reaching my goal of better understanding God’s Word, and His Will in my life. For me, the NIV delivers the heart of the message very well.
I would also disagree with those that contend the NIV is for “beginners” or novices. I not only use the NIV, I consult the KJV, NKJV, Holman’s, NASB, William’s (New Testament) Beck’s (New Testament), and an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. I've been a Christian for over 40 years, and studied for the ministry when I was younger. I don't think most people that know me would consider me a "beginner", or my understanding or reading ability to be at a "seventh grade" level.
If you are comfortable with the NIV, I would suggest you stick with it. You are going to study a translation that you are comfortable reading much more diligently than one with which you have to struggle. May God bless you.

poochie
Jan 31st 2009, 12:30 PM
Amen to that Bad Dog. This si the kind of argument that the book How to Read the Bible for All its Worth uses. The NIV simply makes thinks easier to udnerstand. I have uncovered DOZENS of passages that the NASB may translate more accurate, but in the end do nothign but confuse the reader.

In one verse the NASB,NKJV, ESV and & KJV use "Tale Bearer" while then NIV uses "gossip." I prefer the NIV as its a contemporary word that I understand.



Jemand,

Thx for your reply to my last post.

Can you be specific on those Bible translators? In general these days Bible translation has gone to more DE style of translation, there can be no doubt about that. And the NASB is a faithful translation, no doubt about that as well. However, accuracy in translation is not simply a matter of faithfully transcribing noun and verb meanings, context is significant and we must consider the meanings of phrases, sentences, and the paragraph structure indicated by the Greek signposts. I posted earlier with several specific points here.

Now, regarding what you are alluding to in dealing with tenses, I prefer that verbals be translated as verbals and nouns as nouns, and that they not be switched when that can be done so as to communicate accurate to the readers. But that doesn't happen very often in translation.

Following are 2 examples of differences in translation by the NASB, NIV and HCSB:

For example, Galatians 2:20:
NASB: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

NIV: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

HCSB I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh,F18 I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
F18 "the physical body"

Now here the NIV translated σάρξ as "body" rather than flesh. Hey, I prefer "flesh." But isn't "body" acceptable?


Another example is Matthew 6:33, where the meaning of προστίθημι is interpreted a bit differently by the following translations in terms of its meaning to the English reader:
NASB: "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added F118 to you.
F118 "or provided"

NIV: But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

HCSB: But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you.

Now let's think about this. If you give someone something in addition to what he has, are you not giving it to him "as well"? OK, I prefer "provided" over "given as well" since the Greek word which is often used meaning "to give" is not used here. Could have been used, so why not translate it a bit differently than give? But one must admit that "added to you" is vague and confusing.

That said, I do agree that the NASB more faithfully translates tenses from the Greek to the English. The issue I have is that they have done so at the risk of misunderstanding of meaning to even educated readers due to its woodenness. It was not wooden in koine Greek. The average reader understood it well, at it was plain Greek, not sophisticated, hence I prefer plain English as well.

How did the Holy Spirit lead the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint? Was it a wooden or more free translation? It was very free. Now, did the Holy Spirit use the Hebrew OT or the LXX (Greek Septuagint) when quoting in the NT?

The Greek Septuagint. The Holy Spirit used a free translation when quoting the OT, rather than the original Hebrew source. Hence IMO overall meaning trumps tense and word-meaning. The LXX was not inspired. It was a translation of 70 Hebrew scholars.

Hence I am not very critical of translators efforts. I believe that they are attempting to be very accurate and consistent; yet they are also concerned that the reader truly understand and actually read their Bible regularly.

You've made some good points Jemand.

Thx,

BD

Brother Mark
Jan 31st 2009, 04:04 PM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

Hi Poochie. I haven't found too many people that are willing to change their views on bible translations based on arguments, facts, figures, etc. I really like what someone once told me that Billy Graham said about what bible to use. I never verified if it came from him or not.

The question was asked "What bible do you recommend someone use?" To which he replied "Whichever one you will read."

Better that someone read the NIV, NASB, or even the Living Bible (which is not really a translation) than to read nothing at all. What bible to use is often something God has to do inside a persons heart. I find it fruitless to preach against bible translations that God clearly uses to change hearts. I do find it fruitful to encourage people to read scripture in such a way as they don't feel it condemning or dutifying but rather, to help them have an excited expectation of meeting Almighty God himself and experiencing His presence.

As for the KJV, I was weaned on it and still refer to it. Yet, even with years of reading it, it still can be difficult for me to understand. I much prefer the modern versions for their readability. We no longer speak the language that the KJV uses. However, the KJV is a great took for word studies and even reading and comparing.

poochie
Jan 31st 2009, 06:03 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1965642]Hi Poochie. I haven't found too many people that are willing to change their views on bible translations based on arguments, facts, figures, etc. I really like what someone once told me that Billy Graham said about what bible to use. I never verified if it came from him or not.

The question was asked "What bible do you recommend someone use?" To which he replied "Whichever one you will read."

To make the Bible in a language that people can understand is a good point.


Better that someone read the NIV, NASB, or even the Living Bible (which is not really a translation) than to read nothing at all. What bible to use is often something God has to do inside a persons heart. I find it fruitless to preach against bible translations that God clearly uses to change hearts. I do find it fruitful to encourage people to read scripture in such a way as they don't feel it condemning or dutifying but rather, to help them have an excited expectation of meeting Almighty God himself and experiencing His presence.

This is a problem with your way of thinking. Heb 9:27 says (and often the verse I quote out on soul winning) that is is appointed for man to die once and after that the judgment. I then ask a lost soul if they are ready for the judgment and where they will go when they die.

The Bible has lots and lots and lots of teachings on Hell and the damnation that will face all the wicked ones. But the good news is that there is hope for the lost through the blood of Christ. I tell people of this hope, and tell them that can be freed from a crisis by receiving Christ. We give out many tracts and engage many, but its only the Lord that can convict these people of their sins as he will add them to our number (Acts 13:48, KJV).

BadDog
Jan 31st 2009, 07:59 PM
Jemand,

You do not need to post instances in which the NIV translated σάρξ as "nature" rather than "body" or "flesh." I hate what the NIV has done there. What I was referring to in Galatians 2:20 was where σάρξ is translated as "body." Most readers of the English NT do not understand what is meant by "flesh." By that I mean they bring into their understanding things which simply were not intended. Translation involves not simply the intent of the source language, but the understood meaning by readers of the target language.

You referred to translators introducing their "pet theology" into the Bible text. I do not think that is fair to the translators. Perhaps it should be expressed that when we have certain understanding of theology, it naturally seeps into how we view a Bible text.


Now, regarding what you are alluding to in dealing with tenses, I prefer that verbals be translated as verbals and nouns as nouns, and that they not be switched when that can be done so as to communicate accurately to the readers. But that doesn't happen very often in translation.


I disagree. Even the NIV typically translates verb forms as verb forms and nouns as nouns, but it is very inconsistent in the translation of verb forms, not paying close enough attention to the verb form in the Greek; and it is very inconsistent in translating nouns even when the contexts are the same (see below). And when verbs are not translated at all, leaving it up to the reader’s imagination to supply the action, we find sentences that are easy to read at the expense of New Testament data.
I have observed that the NASB regularly translates perfect tenses as imperfect. ("was throwing the ball" rather than "having thrown the ball") That is one issue I have with the NASB. I would say that sometimes the NIV translates a particular tense perhaps in a manner that would indicate a different tense when focusing on making it clear to the reader. It is not, in general, sloppiness, but a concern in making things clear for the reader.

Jemand, I too have some concern with how the NIV at times handles the tenses. It is not my preferred English text. (Of course I have the option of reading the Greek, which most readers do not.) I do have a NASB, and I use it regularly. But I prefer the HCSB which has balance IMO, similar to the NIV, yet which deals with the tenses more consistently and does not have a perceived bias. Now there are many new English translations out there, and if we were to compare the NIV to many of them the NIV would rank well. IMO the NIV has unfairly been criticized perhaps since it is the most used Bible among English users. KJOnly supporters tend to villify the NIV and ignore many of the other translations out there. For example, much of what you have said about the NIV could be said regarding the NLT.

Now regarding nouns, and mistranslation of those by the NIV, I'm sure that you could provide some examples of this. But the same could be done for any other English translation, including the NASB. Translation is not like math. There is not a single "right answer." It is art. It flows. The NIV is a good English translation IMO. Personally, I prefer the TNIV over the NIV since IMO they have dealt with some of the issues we've been talking about.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Jan 31st 2009, 08:14 PM
Hi Poochie. I haven't found too many people that are willing to change their views on bible translations based on arguments, facts, figures, etc. I really like what someone once told me that Billy Graham said about what bible to use. I never verified if it came from him or not.

The question was asked "What bible do you recommend someone use?" To which he replied "Whichever one you will read."

Better that someone read the NIV, NASB, or even the Living Bible (which is not really a translation) than to read nothing at all. What bible to use is often something God has to do inside a persons heart. I find it fruitless to preach against bible translations that God clearly uses to change hearts. I do find it fruitful to encourage people to read scripture in such a way as they don't feel it condemning or dutifying but rather, to help them have an excited expectation of meeting Almighty God himself and experiencing His presence.

As for the KJV, I was weaned on it and still refer to it. Yet, even with years of reading it, it still can be difficult for me to understand. I much prefer the modern versions for their readability. We no longer speak the language that the KJV uses. However, the KJV is a great took for word studies and even reading and comparing.
Brother mark,

Amen! The portion in bold above is something which I personally often find myself saying. Why be critical of a Bible which the Spirit is clearly using to work in someone's heart? I used to have a real problem with The Message. But now I just view it as a paraphrase, similar to the old, out-of-print Living Bible. (And it is much more accurate than the LB.)

Take care... could not agree more.

BD

Jemand
Jan 31st 2009, 08:38 PM
Another example is Matthew 6:33, where the meaning of προστίθημι is interpreted a bit differently by the following translations in terms of its meaning to the English reader:
NASB: "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added F118 to you.
F118 "or provided"

NIV: But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

HCSB: But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you.

Now let's think about this. If you give someone something in addition to what he has, are you not giving it to him "as well"? OK, I prefer "provided" over "given as well" since the Greek word which is often used meaning "to give" is not used here. Could have been used, so why not translate it a bit differently than give? But one must admit that "added to you" is vague and confusing.

Again, I disagree. In 1385, Wycliffe gave us “cast to you,” in 1534, Tyndale gave us “ministered unto you,” the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible also gave us “ministered unto you,” but the translators of the KJV desired to give us a more accurate and precise translation and gave us “added unto you,” preserving the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there. The Revised Version of 1885 (N.T. 1881) and the American Edition of the Revised Version (ASV) retained the translation of the KJV. The Revised Standard Version revised these earlier editions to read “yours as well,” still preserving the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there.

The translators of NIV also preserved for us that concept, but they did so through the use of a paraphrase, “given to you as well.” This is a good and accurate paraphrase unless one takes exception with the idea of paraphrasing the words of Jesus. The alternate translation of “provided” found in the margins of the earlier editions of the NASB failed to preserve the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there, and this alternate translation, being inadequate, is not found in the Updated NASB of 1995.


That said, I do agree that the NASB more faithfully translates tenses from the Greek to the English. The issue I have is that they have done so at the risk of misunderstanding of meaning to even educated readers due to its woodenness. It was not wooden in koine Greek. The average reader understood it well, at it was plain Greek, not sophisticated, hence I prefer plain English as well.
Please cite some examples where the increased precision of the NASB in translating verb forms resulted in a wooden translation that a man or a woman with a good 11th grade education in an English speaking country would find significantly difficult to understand. As for the Koine Greek New Testament, the Greek syntax is often extremely elaborate, confusing even seasoned readers of the Greek text. For example, Eph. 1:3-14 is, in the Greek text, one very elaborate and complex sentence with one primary clause and a multitude of subordinate clauses, not only confusing very many readers, but giving rise to fanciful and innovative theological aberrations that have substantially crippled the preaching and the teaching of the New Testament message.


How did the Holy Spirit lead the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint? Was it a wooden or more free translation? It was very free. Now, did the Holy Spirit use the Hebrew OT or the LXX (Greek Septuagint) when quoting in the NT.


The Greek Septuagint. The Holy Spirit used a free translation when quoting the OT, rather than the original Hebrew source. Hence IMO overall meaning trumps tense and word-meaning. The LXX was not inspired. It was a translation of 70 Hebrew scholars.
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is a very free and inaccurate translation if we assume, as do most scholars, that the Hebrew text from which it was translated was similar to the ancient Hebrew texts that we have today. However, should a free and inaccurate translation made about 2,250 years ago be today’s standard of accuracy and precision? I do not believe that it should be.


Hence I am not very critical of translators efforts. I believe that they are attempting to be very accurate and consistent; yet they are also concerned that the reader truly understand and actually read their Bible regularly.
I believe that it is the job of the translator of the Bible to provide their targeted readers with as precise and accurate a translation as they are able to understand with reasonable ease. I have used the NASB to teach the Bible to teenagers and young adults and I have found that they understand it quite well unless they have been exposed to free translations and paraphrases that have confused them. Christian teenagers and young adults with even moderate reading skills understand very well what it means to “be in the flesh” unless they have been confused by the NIV, and upon reading the NASB they can readily understand the difference in the New Testament between the “body” and the “flesh.”


You've made some good points Jemand.
Thank you, BadDog, for your kind words and for taking the time to read my posts and to reply to them. May God bless you.

Brother Mark
Jan 31st 2009, 09:08 PM
This is a problem with your way of thinking. Heb 9:27 says (and often the verse I quote out on soul winning) that is is appointed for man to die once and after that the judgment. I then ask a lost soul if they are ready for the judgment and where they will go when they die.

The Bible has lots and lots and lots of teachings on Hell and the damnation that will face all the wicked ones. But the good news is that there is hope for the lost through the blood of Christ. I tell people of this hope, and tell them that can be freed from a crisis by receiving Christ. We give out many tracts and engage many, but its only the Lord that can convict these people of their sins as he will add them to our number (Acts 13:48, KJV).

Condemnation is for the lost not for the saved Poochie. And in the words of Christ...

John 3:16-17
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.
NASB

He didn't send to condemn, but to save. They are condemned already and in the proper time, God leads us to tell them that. But saved folks are never condemned and since bible reading is for them, my words are chosen so as not to condemn. That is something the fundamentalist often struggle with. The OP was about bible reading not soul winning. There's a difference. ;)

Perhaps I should clarify my post. I was speaking of my efforts not being dutifying or condemning. Not that they should read scripture any particular way. But when I encourage them to read scripture, I desire that they read it with the hope of meeting God in a personal way so that He can feed them truth and set them free. IOW, I don't want my words to be manipulative, or dutifying, etc.

Grace and peace,

Mark

poochie
Jan 31st 2009, 09:59 PM
I misunderstood you. I apologize :P

But anyways the Bible very clearly condemns the lost sinner to a crisis in Hell and those so called evangelists that do not tell the sinner of the eternal fire are doing those hell bound sinners a disfavor BIG TIME!

I strive not to focus only on the fire, and diversify my tracts. I have tracts on Eternal Life being a free gift, tracts that are geared towards certain audiences, and also 1 tract with a hand burning in Hell, and yet another with a title called "Heaven or Hell" which one will you choose?

I write a very brief article on Hell and listed the many passages that describe this place and it is below.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/hell.htm

I could write a much bigger one, but at the moment am working on a large eschatology paper and another one on alleged Bible Discrepancies.

But my point is simple.

Jesus came to save sinners from the fire, but people must know about the fire, and know that without Christ they will go there.


Condemnation is for the lost not for the saved Poochie. And in the words of Christ...

John 3:16-17
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.
NASB

He didn't send to condemn, but to save. They are condemned already and in the proper time, God leads us to tell them that. But saved folks are never condemned and since bible reading is for them, my words are chosen so as not to condemn. That is something the fundamentalist often struggle with. The OP was about bible reading not soul winning. There's a difference. ;)

Perhaps I should clarify my post. I was speaking of my efforts not being dutifying or condemning. Not that they should read scripture any particular way. But when I encourage them to read scripture, I desire that they read it with the hope of meeting God in a personal way so that He can feed them truth and set them free. IOW, I don't want my words to be manipulative, or dutifying, etc.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Brother Mark
Jan 31st 2009, 10:30 PM
I misunderstood you. I apologize :P

But anyways the Bible very clearly condemns the lost sinner to a crisis in Hell and those so called evangelists that do not tell the sinner of the eternal fire are doing those hell bound sinners a disfavor BIG TIME!

I strive not to focus only on the fire, and diversify my tracts. I have tracts on Eternal Life being a free gift, tracts that are geared towards certain audiences, and also 1 tract with a hand burning in Hell, and yet another with a title called "Heaven or Hell" which one will you choose?

It is wise to use different focus on tracts. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, he spoke on being born again. When he spoke to the woman at the well, he spoke of her heart and worship and prophesied over her about her circumstances. Jonah preached judgment and saw an entire city get saved. There's a time and place for it all. The important thing is that we are led of the Holy Spirit when we speak so that we speak what is needed at the moment.

Grace and peace,

Mark

BadDog
Feb 1st 2009, 10:55 PM
Again, I disagree. In 1385, Wycliffe gave us “cast to you,” in 1534, Tyndale gave us “ministered unto you,” the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible also gave us “ministered unto you,” but the translators of the KJV desired to give us a more accurate and precise translation and gave us “added unto you,” preserving the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there. The Revised Version of 1885 (N.T. 1881) and the American Edition of the Revised Version (ASV) retained the translation of the KJV. The Revised Standard Version revised these earlier editions to read “yours as well,” still preserving the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there.

The translators of NIV also preserved for us that concept, but they did so through the use of a paraphrase, “given to you as well.” This is a good and accurate paraphrase unless one takes exception with the idea of paraphrasing the words of Jesus. The alternate translation of “provided” found in the margins of the earlier editions of the NASB failed to preserve the concept in the original Greek word of adding to what is already there, and this alternate translation, being inadequate, is not found in the Updated NASB of 1995.
BD: That footnote was from the 1995 edition.
Jemand,

My point is that sometimes periphrastic translation, such as was done in the LXX, can more accurately translate the intended meaning than a strictly "word-for-word" kind of translation philosophy. The fact is that no translation, including the KJV and the NASB, are "word-for-word" as that is not translation. But they do follow the form used in Greek, and that is not always the correct way to do it. That's right, to follow the identical form of the Greek is to ignore the English form, which is significantly different than Greek. Again, even the KJV and NASB do not precisely follow thesame form, as to do so would result in gibberish. But we need to think not only about the source language, but about what would be most accurate and best understood in the target language as well.


Please cite some examples where the increased precision of the NASB in translating verb forms resulted in a wooden translation that a man or a woman with a good 11th grade education in an English speaking country would find significantly difficult to understand. As for the Koine Greek New Testament, the Greek syntax is often extremely elaborate, confusing even seasoned readers of the Greek text. For example, Eph. 1:3-14 is, in the Greek text, one very elaborate and complex sentence with one primary clause and a multitude of subordinate clauses, not only confusing very many readers, but giving rise to fanciful and innovative theological aberrations that have substantially crippled the preaching and the teaching of the New Testament message.
Well, I can do so (and will), but my point is that the Greek NT was written in a language that the common person, say today comparable to one with a 6th grade education, could easily understand.
How about Ephesians 1:3-10? I've removed the verse headings so as to de-confuse it a bit. :P

NASB: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.
4 sentences. I analyzed it in the M/S Word and it came up as:
Words: 169
Sentences: 4
Words per sentence: 42.2
Chars per word: 4.2
Flesch Reading Ease: 48% (quite low)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0 (It cannot go above 12th grade.)

NIV: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
5 sentences. I analyzed it in the M/S Word and it came up as:
Words: 162
Sentences: 5
Words per sentence: 32.4
Chars per word: 4.3
Flesch Reading Ease: 58% (still pretty low)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0 (It cannot go above 12th grade.)

ESV: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
3 sentences. I analyzed it in the M/S Word and it came up as:
Words: 152
Sentences: 3
Words per sentence: 50.6
Chars per word: 4.2
Flesch Reading Ease: 41.3% (quite low)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0 (It cannot go above 12th grade.)

NLT: How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ. Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure. So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son. He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven. He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. God's secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure. And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ – everything in heaven and on earth.
9 sentences. It's amazing how just shortening sentences makes it so much easier to understand:
Words: 186
Sentences: 9
Words per sentence: 20.6
Chars per word: 4.2
Flesch Reading Ease: 69.2% (decent)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.2

HCSB: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
3 sentences. It's amazing how just shortening sentences makes it so much easier to understand:
Words: 152
Sentences: 3
Words per sentence: 50.6
Chars per word: 4.2
Flesch Reading Ease: 41.3% (decent)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0

I would contend that for this paragraph a more periphrastic style of translation and shortening of sentences is critical.

Here're the results for a more readable text, 1 Thessalonians 2:

KJV:
words - 479
sentences - 12
words per sentence - 39.9
chars per word - 4.1
Readability:
Passive sentences - 16%
Flesch Reading Ease - 60.2%
F-K Grade level - 12.0

NCV:
words - 513 (7% more words)
sentences - 34 (sentences on the average about 1/3rd as long)
words per sentence - 15.0
chars per word - 3.9
Readability:
Passive sentences - 5%
Flesch Reading Ease - 82.1%
F-K Grade level - 5.4

NIV:
words - 489
sentences - 22
words per sentence - 22.2
chars per word - 3.9
Readability:
Passive sentences - 9%
Flesch Reading Ease - 73.4%
F-K Grade level - 8.2

NASB:
words - 499
sentences - 16
words per sentence - 31.1
chars per word - 4.0
Readability:
Passive sentences - 12%
Flesch Reading Ease - 64.3%
F-K Grade level - 10.8


The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is a very free and inaccurate translation if we assume, as do most scholars, that the Hebrew text from which it was translated was similar to the ancient Hebrew texts that we have today. However, should a free and inaccurate translation made about 2,250 years ago be today’s standard of accuracy and precision? I do not believe that it should be.
The Holy Spirit used the Greek Septuagint rather than translating from the Hebrew text when quoting the OT. You're arguing with the Holy Spirit here, not me. :D


I believe that it is the job of the translator of the Bible to provide their targeted readers with as precise and accurate a translation as they are able to understand with reasonable ease. I have used the NASB to teach the Bible to teenagers and young adults and I have found that they understand it quite well unless they have been exposed to free translations and paraphrases that have confused them. Christian teenagers and young adults with even moderate reading skills understand very well what it means to “be in the flesh” unless they have been confused by the NIV, and upon reading the NASB they can readily understand the difference in the New Testament between the “body” and the “flesh.”

Thank you, BadDog, for your kind words and for taking the time to read my posts and to reply to them. May God bless you.
What you have described in the underlined above is essentially the expressed philosophy of the ESV and the HCSB. They both express the idea of "as literal as possible; as free as necessary." (The RSV motto.) The HCSB referred to it as "optimal equivalency," and in their preface they describe essentially the same idea as the RSV/ESV I like both expressions.

Thx Jemand,

Take care,

BD

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:38 PM
Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

Thanks..

I think if you are spiritually fed by the NIV, than you should keep using it. There is but one reason I know that the NIV comes up short. Apparently, they used many translators from many different types of Christian beliefs. Some believed in a pre-trib rapture, some mid-trib, some end trib...some no rapture at all. Some believed in predestination, some free will. (Etc) So one book might have been translated by a guy who believed one thing, and another book might have been translated by a guy who believed the opposite, and the books end up conflicting with each other.

Too, when the NIV (and some other new versions) ran into textual problems, they used Hort and Wescotts Greek text to clarify. These guys aren't what we would call Christians. You might google them and read up on them.

Bosco

BadDog
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:36 PM
I think if you are spiritually fed by the NIV, than you should keep using it.
Agreed.

<snip>


Too, when the NIV (and some other new versions) ran into textual problems, they used Hort and Wescotts Greek text to clarify. These guys aren't what we would call Christians. You might google them and read up on them.

Bosco
Bosco,

Westcott and Hort were believers. There are KJV-only sites which rip them, but can I encourage you to read the whole story? My notes on this are at home, so I can't be specific right now. It is estimated that 98% of today's Greek textual critics hold to the Alexandrian text (Westcott-Hort, sometimes referred to as the "critical text" due to the critical method of evaluating Greek texts vs. the "majority method" typically employed when using the Byzantine text).

The "majority text" (Byzantine text) is often referred to as such since there are many more Byzantine Greek MSS (manuscripts) than Alexandrian (critical text - CT) MSS. But the CT MSS are much older.

And if you consider only MSS which are from the 10th century or older, the CT is in the majority. If you only consider MSS before the 7th century, then the CT is the huge majority. IOW, of the really old MSS, very few are Byzantine.

All modern NTs are based on the CT rather than the MT. The only published exception is the NKJV (1984) which was edited by the late Art Farstad. Now the KJV (and NKJV) are based on Erasmus' 3rd edition (actually a slight revision of that - Stephanus' Greek text later edited by Beza) of his "textus receptus," which was a very poor representative of the majority text, FWIW.

So I encourage those lurking on this thread to not be too quick to make judgments regarding the Greek text behind the NIV and other modern translations (such as the NASB, which also used the Westcott-Hort MSS).

Take care,

BD

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:46 PM
Agreed.

<snip>


Bosco,

Westcott and Hort were believers. There are KJV-only sites which rip them, but can I encourage you to read the whole story? My notes on this are at home, so I can't be specific right now. It is estimated that 98% of today's Greek textual critics hold to the Alexandrian text (Westcott-Hort, sometimes referred to as the "critical text" due to the critical method of evaluating Greek texts vs. the "majority method" typically employed when using the Byzantine text).

The "majority text" (Byzantine text) is often referred to as such since there are many more Byzantine Greek MSS (manuscripts) than Alexandrian (critical text - CT) MSS. But the CT MSS are much older.

And if you consider only MSS which are from the 10th century or older, the CT is in the majority. If you only consider MSS before the 7th century, then the CT is the huge majority. IOW, of the really old MSS, very few are Byzantine.

All modern NTs are based on the CT rather than the MT. The only published exception is the NKJV (1984) which was edited by the late Art Farstad. Now the KJV (and NKJV) are based on Erasmus' 3rd edition (actually a slight revision of that - Stephanus' Greek text later edited by Beza) of his "textus receptus," which was a very poor representative of the majority text, FWIW.

So I encourage those lurking on this thread to not be too quick to make judgments regarding the Greek text behind the NIV and other modern translations (such as the NASB, which also used the Westcott-Hort MSS).

Take care,

BD

Thanks BD. The KJV only sites I generally ignore. Not that I don't think the KJV is following the lines of inspiration, I do, but I found those that hold to "KJV only and everything else is a lie" line of thinking seem to operate on a rudimentary level when it comes to study and understanding. (no offense intended toward anyone) However, I had reached my Hort and Wescott conclusions based on letters each had written between themselves or to others. If they believed BD, it leaned heavily toward Catholicism. To say that they believed what most on these boards believes would be a stretch, in my opinion. I must admit, it isn't like I have actually held in my hand a letter from Hort to Wescott, and the internet being what it is, it is possible they are not what they seem to be. But, if the letters between them are real, they were not Christians as anyone on these boards would define them.

As far as the older texts, I do understand your point. But is older "always" better? The older manuscripts also contain the gnostic writings which depict Jesus as married with children in one book, and gay in another. Because those MSS are older, should we accept that kind of heresy?

I will keep an open mind on H & W though. If you have any information on them, you are welcome to e-mail it to me.

Bosco

Jemand
Feb 2nd 2009, 07:56 PM
my point is that the Greek NT was written in a language that the common person, say today comparable to one with a 6th grade education, could easily understand.
How about Ephesians 1:3-10? I've removed the verse headings so as to de-confuse it a bit…. I would contend that for this paragraph a more periphrastic style of translation and shortening of sentences is critical.

I could not more strenuously disagree. Eph. 1:3-14 (not just 1:3-10), as expressed by Paul in Koine Greek, is one sentence with one primary clause and a multitude of subordinate clauses. In order to convey this critical fact to the English reader, it is absolutely essential that in the English translation this most basic element of the structure of the passage be preserved lest some of the subordinate clauses be read as primary clauses necessarily changing to a great degree the meaning of the passage. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the interpretation of this passage are all too aware of the theological aberrations that have blighted Christian theology because this most basic element of the structure of the passage has been ignored.

And let us not confuse the concepts of “Koine” and “easy to understand.” Koine Greek was NOT simplified Greek; it was an informal style of Greek used for many purposes in a wide spectrum of literature. When it was employed by the Apostle Paul in the writing of his epistles, the syntax was often extremely complex and in order for an English translation to be accurate, extremely complex English syntax MUST be employed in order to preserve the meaning of the original. The NASB does a better job than the NIV and most other translations in this critical area of translation, but its translation of Eph. 1:3-14 is nearly as poor as the translation found in the NIV. The ASV of 1901, however, in this critical area of translation in this verse, did an outstanding job,

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
5. having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
7. in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trepasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8. which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9. making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him
10. unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,
11. in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
12. to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:
13. in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

If it takes a reader an extra minute or two to read and correctly understand this very long sentence in the ASV, that is far better than seriously misunderstanding it in a quick read. Millions of readers have read Eph. 1:1-14 in inadequate translation and have misunderstood it to be a series of objective doctrinal statements rather than what it actually is—a doxology eulogizing the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

BadDog
Feb 2nd 2009, 09:25 PM
Thanks BD. The KJV only sites I generally ignore. Not that I don't think the KJV is following the lines of inspiration, I do, but I found those that hold to "KJV only and everything else is a lie" line of thinking seem to operate on a rudimentary level when it comes to study and understanding. (no offense intended toward anyone) However, I had reached my Hort and Wescott conclusions based on letters each had written between themselves or to others. If they believed BD, it leaned heavily toward Catholicism. To say that they believed what most on these boards believes would be a stretch, in my opinion. I must admit, it isn't like I have actually held in my hand a letter from Hort to Wescott, and the internet being what it is, it is possible they are not what they seem to be. But, if the letters between them are real, they were not Christians as anyone on these boards would define them.
Agreed about the KJV-only sites. I have read some articles published by W & H, just don't have it at my fingertips now. One of them is a little off-center, but that they believe that Jesus is God's Son, fully God and died for their sins is very clear. I'll get back to you on this.


As far as the older texts, I do understand your point. But is older "always" better? The older manuscripts also contain the gnostic writings which depict Jesus as married with children in one book, and gay in another. Because those MSS are older, should we accept that kind of heresy?

I will keep an open mind on H & W though. If you have any information on them, you are welcome to e-mail it to me.

BoscoWell, those gnostic MSS were never accepted by the existing church. Now if MSS are older that is significant. If the majority text does not have many MSS very old, that should raise a red flag as well. If you toss out those Byzantine Greek MSS which are not recent, the vast majority fit into that category. What value is a MS copied in the 15th century? Not much, as compared to one copied in the 6th century.

I used to be a majority text guy (never the TR, but the MT over the CT), while I was on this board. But I changed about 3 or 4 years ago... mainly because among reliable older MSS the CT is in the vast majority over the MT.

IMO all MSS should have some weight in attempting to piece together the original autographs. Harry Sturz does that - I like his approach. The problem is that the CT people don't accept the MT at all, and visa-versa. I can recommend the following balanced approach to textual criticism:

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, by Harry A. Sturz, publ. by Thomas Nelson, 1984

Sturz gives weight to the Alexandrian text, the Byzantine text and the Western text.

Now the TR - I do have an issue with that compiled MSS as it is a poor representative of the MT. I have a majority text Bible - the one by Hodges and Farstad. It has a nice set of apparatuses. Pierpont and Robinson also developed an excellent MT compiled MS. But there are just too many places that the TR and the MT differ.

Just FYI, here's the eclectic approach that Sturz supports:
This method of textual criticism endeavors to have no favorite manuscript and no preferred text
type. They based their judgment on internal criteria to determine what is most likely the original. This view has three
principles,
1. No one type of text is infallible, or to be preferred,
2. each reading must be examined on its merits with preference given to those readings which are demonstrably in the style of the author and
3. readings which best explain other variants are to be preferred.

I like that approach.

CYL,

BD

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 10:34 PM
Bad dog....remember this, an older MSS is still just a copy of something else. So what came from the 10th century might be a good representation of what was written in the first. The copy we have that dates to the 4th or 6th century, might be a copy of something written later...as in the 4th or 6th century.

I am not saying that is the case, but without the originals, we have to take the context of scripture and weigh the theme of scripture against any MSS regardless of the date.

Let me put it another way, I can prove using the Old Testament that Jesus is God. (many times over) Yet, some of the modern bible versions remove NT passages that point to his diety. So I am a little leary from that standpoint.

I do look forward to your stuff on H & W, I'll share some stuff as well. So we have to start a new thread or something?

Bosco

poochie
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:21 AM
I disagree. When Jesus first came he preached a message of repentance and he often spoke on Hell. He spoke on Hell more than anyone else in the NT!

This is why I use all sorts of tracts. I use ones on the burning Hell, one with a picture of a airplane crashing into the World Trade Center with a question "What if you had been here?" , one on the damnation of the devils false religions, and others on the Romans Road, eternal life being a free gift, the way to eternal life,etc..

With some I strive to give the heaven and hell tracts, and others I will give the other ones.

Fire & Brimstone Bible preaching Fundamentalist are in the rarity these days, but this is why I love people like Tom Farrow & Oliver Greene.

Sadly the Fundamentalist radio station that airs Greene lacks funds or whatever for podcasting, streaming and such, and so the only way to capture his EXCELLENT teachings are via the traditional audio cassette. I bought a number of tapes for this purpose, to hear his preaching encase I move out of the area.



It is wise to use different focus on tracts. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, he spoke on being born again. When he spoke to the woman at the well, he spoke of her heart and worship and prophesied over her about her circumstances. Jonah preached judgment and saw an entire city get saved. There's a time and place for it all. The important thing is that we are led of the Holy Spirit when we speak so that we speak what is needed at the moment.

Grace and peace,

Mark

BadDog
Feb 5th 2009, 04:31 AM
Bad dog....remember this, an older MSS is still just a copy of something else. So what came from the 10th century might be a good representation of what was written in the first. The copy we have that dates to the 4th or 6th century, might be a copy of something written later...as in the 4th or 6th century.

I am not saying that is the case, but without the originals, we have to take the context of scripture and weigh the theme of scripture against any MSS regardless of the date.

Let me put it another way, I can prove using the Old Testament that Jesus is God. (many times over) Yet, some of the modern bible versions remove NT passages that point to his diety. So I am a little leary from that standpoint.

I do look forward to your stuff on H & W, I'll share some stuff as well. So we have to start a new thread or something?

Bosco
Such is possible, but the odds are very weak for such.

The concern that many textual critics have with the Byzantine text is a suspicion that it was a copy of a variant stream, and hence that a copy was proliferated which had some errors.

At any rate to assume that more recent copies were more likely to be better representatives of the original autographs is a dangerous path to go down.

BD

BadDog
Feb 5th 2009, 06:30 AM
Most of the attacks on W-H originate from Gail Riplinger and her 1993 book, New Age Bible Versions. This is the source of most comments you can read online these days regarding the history of the Greek texts behind the NIV and other modern translations. IOT accomplish her goal, she villified Westcott and Hort.

What motivates her attack upon Westcott and Hort? They were the originators of the focus upon the Alexandrian text-type. Most won't take the time to actually read the references she gives, they will be left with an untrue impression of the men who are behind the modern versions which, of course, she is attempting to prove are Satanically inspired and designed to lead into Lucifer worship. None of those claims are valid.

One of the most common reports one can read about BF Westcott is that he is a spiritualist. But that actually is based on poor research by Gail Riplinger. WW Westcott, not BF Westcott, was a spiritualist. WW Westcott was born in 1848 and died in 1925. BF Westcott was born in 1825 and died in 1901. Much of her research is shoddy, such as this. BF Westcott was not a spiritualist. Westcott and Hort were divinity profs at Cambridge. They were believers.

She also cites Arthur Westcott, B.F. Westcott’s son, as indicating that his father was a “Spiritualist.” Again, this is just not true. What his son actually reported was that of a “Ghostlie Circular” written up by his father, which explains that a society he was involved with was interested in determining whether supernatural events are indeed taking place today or not. That is not spiritualism.

Another supposed knock on Hort this time was that he believed in evolution. Again this is not true. It comes from a couple of quotes in which Hort reports enjoying reading Darwin. Hey, he's just saying it was an interesting read. He also wrote to MacMillan (Westcott and Hort's publisher) that he wanted to write and publish a formal critical response to Darwin's book, in both scientific and theological form. Though Hort saw Darwin's theories as intriguing, he said that "it is a ticklish matter, and one wants months and months to think and read about it" and also, "I do see immense difficulties in his theory". Hort also said, "I shall also be glad to hear what Sedgwick, and indeed Cambridge in general, says to Darwin."

Westcott supposedly did not hold to creation either, but that is also not true. He viewed Genesis one as poetical in nature, but that God did create the world. IOW, he probably did not hold to 24-hr. days in Genesis 1. But how many professors in our seminaries today do? I can assure you that it is a small minority. Westcott does hold to creation.

Another person who extensively published against W & H is Donald Waite, a KJV-only adherrant who believes the KJV to be perfect. He claims that Westcott did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ because he objected to a book by Cassels (Supernatural Religion ) in his book, The Gospel of the Resurrection in which Westcott said that Cassels held a radically different view of the resurrection than he held to. Waite mistakenly assumed Cassels' work was sound. In actuality, it was Cassels who did not hold to an orthodox position on the resurrection, not Westcott! The book was actually a systematic denial of historic, biblical Christianity and an assault upon “supernatural” religion! Westcott objected to Cassels' attempt to deny that miracles actually happen. Of course, Waite got it wrong, but who cares about such details, as long as people will throw away their NIV Bibles and use the KJV... the end justifies the means apparently.

Almost everything written in opposition to the NIV recently comes from those two sources. They are quoted by many. Burger (sp?) is another source - he's from the 19th century, and he is often taken out of context as well. (Burger did oppose W-H's new Greek compiled NT.)

The reality is that BF Westcott was a conservative NT scholar who held to the deity of Christ and believed that the Bible's reports of miracles were sound.

Here's an actual quote by Westcott in his book refuting Cassel: "Indeed taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it. ... It is stated in the Acts that the necessary qualification of an Apostle was that he should be a personal witness of the Resurrection; and St Paul admits the qualification, and shews that it was fulfilled in his case."

Another claim is that Hort did not hold to the deity of Christ. That probably comes from the following quote, taken out of context:

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their cause and in their results." Life and Letters of Hort, Vol II, pp 49-50.

Here it is in context, where we see that Hort was actually concerned with a misunderstanding by some Christians of priests. That's why he put Jesus in quotes:
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the N.T. tells of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects. On the other we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood."

Here's a quote by Hort regarding the hypostatic union of Christ:
"And take a look at 'One,truly man,fulfilled a divine office,that is Jesus.'", The Historic Faith, p 47

Westcott says in, The Historic Faith, p 49:
"Thus from the Person of the Lord we go on to consider His Nature. We confess that He is 'the only son of God' and 'our Lord'. In both respects, though truly man Who lived with men, He occupies a position essentially distinct from that of any other. His Godhead is one with the Godhead of the Father, His sovereignty over men is absolute. Christians are sons of God, but sons by adoption in virtue of their fellowship with Him Who is Son by nature. There are many lords who claim the obedience of outward service [but] One only Who demands the complete surrender of the soul.
Does that sound like the testimony of an unbeliever to you?

"We believe - I say - and confess that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. The confession cannot be lightly made. If the simple thought of God ought to fill us with speechless awe, the further thought of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, is yet more overwhelming. On such a mystery, where human words and human thoughts must fail, our words should be few, and these spoken rather in devotion that in explanation or argument."

Quite clear.

Now Hort and Westcott were Anglicans. They were not fundamentalist protestants. But it is simply unfair to claim they held beliefs which they clearly didn't.


Now regarding my concerns with the MT, one thing is generally acknowledged by all textual critics: the Byzantine text-type--or majority text--did not exist in the first three centuries. That is of serious concern for me.

The Greek manuscripts which we have available today do not include the Byzantine text in the first four centuries. That is amazing. But some will ask about other languages that they had been translated into in those first few centuries and the church fathers?

The NT was translated into Latin in the second century. About 100 Latin MSS (before Jerome's Vulgate) represent this Old Latin translation, and they all attest to the Western text-type. IOW the Greek manuscripts they translated were not the Byzantine text.

The Coptic version also goes back to the second century, and it was a translation of Alexandrian MSS, not Byzantine ones. The earliest forms of the Syriac are also from either Western or Alexandrian texts.

Now some MT advocates appeal to the Syriac Pesetta as both coming from the 2nd century and supposedly being a translation from the Byzantine text. However, although the Pesetta originated before the mid 5th century, however most critics say it originated in the 4th century. Hence we still have no evidence of early MT MSS.

(Some think that Constantine liked a particular Greek MSS and was concerned about the various, slightly different, Greek MSS around, and tried to remove all but one form - the Byzantine. We do know that he purged many Greek MSS, but it is just speculation that the MSS preserved was Byzantine. and that is its origin. Some scholars who hold to the CT speculate that this is the origin of the MT, but I'm not going to go down that path. It's not fair to the MT.)

I like the MT. But I do not think it is as reliable a family as the Alexandrian or Western families.

Thx,

BD

Jemand
Feb 6th 2009, 11:30 PM
Almost everything written in opposition to the NIV recently comes from those two sources. They are quoted by many. Burger (sp?) is another source - he's from the 19th century, and he is often taken out of context as well. (Burger did oppose W-H's new Greek compiled NT.)

The gentleman’s name was Dean John William Burgon (1813-1888). Beginning in 1846, Dean Burgon served as Fellow of Oriel College of the University of Oxford and in 1863 he was made vicar of the University Church of St. Mary the Virgin, the parish Church of the University. In 1867, he was appointed Gresham Professor of Divinity at Oxford. During the last twelve years of his life, he served as Dean of Chichester Cathedral in Sussex, England.

His most notable works are:

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)

The Revision Revised, a critique of the recently published Revised Version of 1881-1885 (1883)

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (published posthumously in 1896)

The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text (published posthumously in 1896)

Dean Burgon was passionate about his feelings toward the Critical Text of the New Testament and he wrote passionately about it in his The Revision Revised,


Vanquished by The WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against the Word written. Hence, as I think,—hence the extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,—lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr. Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ‘instinctive processes’ of Criticism; and who, at first as well as ‘at last,’ freely made their appeal ‘to the individual mind:’—such were the corrupting influences which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known anything approaching to it,—can show nothing at all like it. (page 334)
It is true that almost everything written recently in opposition to the NIV comes from Gail Riplinger and Donald Waite and other KJOists; but this fact is not due to any merit on the part of the NIV. The multitude of problems with the NIV was exposed years ago and there is little need for anyone to publish the data today.

The moral fiber and theology of Westcott and Hort is of no relevance to their New Testament text. Their text, as do all New Testament texts, stands or falls on the basis of its own merit. The Greek textual basis of the NIV (and other modern translations of the New Testament that have a similar textual basis) is academically solid and anyone who attacks it on the basis of irrelevant data is betraying their inability to find any consequential fault with the text itself; and anyone who attacks it on the basis of data that is not only irrelevant, but also fictitious (as BadDog has clearly shown), is betraying their true spiritual condition.

BadDog
Feb 7th 2009, 04:59 AM
Thx Jemand, that's it. He did a wealth of Greek analysis in defending the MT. I'm not saying it has little value, but you would think there was a more recent Greek textual critic to reference.


It is true that almost everything written recently in opposition to the NIV comes from Gail Riplinger and Donald Waite and other KJOists; but this fact is not due to any merit on the part of the NIV. The multitude of problems with the NIV was exposed years ago and there is little need for anyone to publish the data today.
I agree that the NIV hasn't been attacked due to its merits-necessarily.

It was attacked partly because it was perhaps the first 20th century DE-type translation. (Though IMO the RSV has many DE characteristics.)

It was also attacked because it has become the new Bible of evangelical Christianity, over-taking the KJV.


The moral fiber and theology of Westcott and Hort is of no relevance to their New Testament text. BD: Amen! I agree 100% Their text, as do all New Testament texts, stands or falls on the basis of its own merit. The Greek textual basis of the NIV (and other modern translations of the New Testament that have a similar textual basis) is academically solid and anyone who attacks it on the basis of irrelevant data is betraying their inability to find any consequential fault with the text itself; and anyone who attacks it on the basis of data that is not only irrelevant, but also fictitious (as BadDog has clearly shown), is betraying their true spiritual condition.
Amen again, and thx.

I do like the MT, and once was a strong adherent to it. I wish that the MT MSS would be considered as well as the CT and Western family. I'm not a fan of the textus receptus, because I consider it to be a poor representative of the Byzantine family.

BTW, for those interested in considering what principles and philosophies are of concern for translation, I recommend the following text (not available on line I don't think):
Translating the Word of God, by John Beekman and John Callow, 1974 - Zondervan. It is used by Wycliffe's Summer Institute of Linguistics.

These authors have over 20 years of translating experience each, graduated from MOODY BI and London Bible College. Callow has a PhD in linguistics.

Chapter 1 is great ("Literal and Idiomatic Translation") alone. They deal with translating metaphors, multiple word meanings, concordance, lexical equivalence across the target and source languages, rhetorical questions, semantic structure, etc., and genitive structure to name a few topics, with specific examples from scripture. There's also a scripture index.

Take care,

BD