Connie Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 Hi. I've recently come across a copy of the NIV Translation of the Bible. It's been interesting to skim through it a bit.I would like to hear other's opinions on this translation of the Bible. Are there any LDS here who like this translation? What Christian sects use this translation? Any other thoughts or comments welcome.Thanks.
DH Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 I know a certain CES employee who likes the NIV. I like my NIV Study Bible, too, both for the clarity and the study aids. Kinda prefer the language of the KJV, though. The NIV has its detractors, and they may have good points, but I like it.
maklelan Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 The NIV is one of the more conservative translations, and it has no problem with altering the meaning of a verse to make it better fit conservative Evangelical ideologies. Other than that, it uses pretty idiomatic English and is not too difficult to read.
zerinus Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 Hi. I've recently come across a copy of the NIV Translation of the Bible. It's been interesting to skim through it a bit.I would like to hear other's opinions on this translation of the Bible. Are there any LDS here who like this translation? What Christian sects use this translation? Any other thoughts or comments welcome.Thanks.My favourite modern translation of the Bible is the New Jerusalem Bible.
kolipoki09 Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 Hi. I've recently come across a copy of the NIV Translation of the Bible. It's been interesting to skim through it a bit.I would like to hear other's opinions on this translation of the Bible. Are there any LDS here who like this translation? What Christian sects use this translation? Any other thoughts or comments welcome.Thanks.I've used it before, but for academic work I prefer the New Revised Standard Version. Ultimately I prefer using the Greek and Hebrew texts available through Accordance. At church, I still bring my quad with the LDS edition of the King James Version. The NIV has a broad readership among several mainline Protestant denominations, though no particular denomination (of which I am aware) explicitly encourages its members to use the NIV over other translations.
Mudcat Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 Hi Connie,I am an evangelical Christian. There are a number of folks in my church that use the NIV. It's one of the more readable translations available, but the fact that it's easy to read means someone has done the leg work of interpreting it for you. In polite terms, I like to think of it as the word of God.. shaken, not stirred, with a twist of lemon.I don't really like the NIV... at all. There is a slant to it that goes well beyond grating on my nerves. Grrrrrr.....I have an NASB as a carry Bible and though it's a bit more difficult than NIV, it certainly does a better job as a modern translation.Respectfully,Mudcat
Doctrine 612 Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 I am king james bible guy through and through I do not like the niv at all the translation is the worst I have seen next to the NWT and a few of my many points is 1 cor ch 7 it goes from forncation in the kjv to not marry in the niv, and 2nd the missing verses taking out because they could not fit the translators belifes i like to call it a copy and paste job.well there is one thing i like about my niv is that it makes a great door stop.
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 I don't like the NIV. As Mudcat said it tries to interpret for you. Then again, I don't like the KJV very much either. It's verbiage often seems to obscure plain meaning, it is censored in areas to avoid offense, and the beauty of the text is something the translators put there, not something Jesus or the Apostles or the Prophets put in.
Saints Alive Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 The NIV is one of the more popular versions, I like the readable language but I am weary of the dubious translation.
cinepro Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 The NIV is one of the more conservative translations, and it has no problem with altering the meaning of a verse to make it better fit conservative Evangelical ideologies. Other than that, it uses pretty idiomatic English and is not too difficult to read.Do you have a couple examples of verses being "altered to make it better fit conservative Evangelical ideologies"?
cdowis Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 Regarding the KJV, go to KBYUtv and find the series "Fire of Faith" and select the last episode where they talk about the history of the translation and some of its features. I think you will get a new appreciation of the KJV. It is well worth the extra effort to read it.
Bob Crockett Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) snip Edited March 11, 2012 by Bob Crockett
maklelan Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 Do you have a couple examples of verses being "altered to make it better fit conservative Evangelical ideologies"?Sure. A good example is Jer 7:22, which is a head-scratcher because it has Yhwh saying, "for I did not speak to your ancestors, nor did I command them in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices." This is a pretty clear and unambiguous negation. Yhwh did not give Israel commandments about sacrifices and offerings when he brought them out of Egypt. The NIV renders, however, "For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices." Not only does it entirely remove the negation from the first clause, but it adds a qualification to the second that is simply not in the Hebrew in order to mitigate the negation. Why? Because the Covenant Code very clearly has Yhwh giving them commandments about burnt offerings and sacrifices, and the univocality of the text must be preserved.Another example is Gen 2:19, which translates a narrative predicate as a pluperfect in order to mitigate the chronological problems with the second creation account in relation to the first:Correct translation, which begins a new and different creation account: "And Yhwh God created from the ground every beast of the field . . ."NIV translation: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field . . ."Even the footnotes are misleading. The beginning of Deut 32:43 is translated, "Rejoice you nations, with his people," but from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know the verse originally also said, "Let all the gods worship him." In the Septuagint, it's been expanded to "let all the sons of God worship him. Delight, O nations, and let the angels of God strengthen him." The footnote here in the NIV has "Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint) people, /and let all the angels worship him/." Neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor the Septuagint says this, though.The New Testament is no different. In Matt 13:32 and Mark 4:31 we have the famous claim that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. This is not true, which is not a huge deal, but the NIV translation committee renders "the smallest of all your seeds" in order to mitigate the error. N. T. Wright had this to say about the NIV's translation of Paul's material:I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses … Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said … f a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. Yes, the NRSV sometimes lets you down, too, but nowhere near as frequently or as badly as the NIV. And, yes, the NIV has now been replaced with newer adaptations in which some at least of the worst features have, I think, been at least modified. But there are many who, having made the switch to the NIV, are now stuck with reading Romans 3:21-26 like this:“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known…. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…. [God] did this to demonstrate his justice… he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”In other words, “the righteousness of God” in Romans 3:21 is only allowed to mean “the righteous status which comes to people from God,” whereas the equivalent term in Romans 3:25 and Romans 3:26 clearly refers to God’s own righteousness — which is presumably why the NIV has translated it as “justice,” to avoid having the reader realize the deception. 3
Aristotle Smith Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Jer 7:22...Gen 2:19...Deut 32:43These remain unchanged in the NIV 2011. I don't have the Hebrew background to comment on this at all, but I did look up the Septuagint for Deut 32:43 and it is greatly expanded over the NIV (and I presume the Masoretic). It doesn't say "and let all the angels worship him." I am curious as to why they pulled this one in and not the rest of the Septuagint expansion. I don't see what this adds to an Evangelical theology in any case.In Matt 13:32 and Mark 4:31 we have the famous claim that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. This is not true, which is not a huge deal, but the NIV translation committee renders "the smallest of all your seeds" in order to mitigate the error.The NIV 2011 version has corrected this to read "the smallest of all seeds on earth."Romans 3:21-26No matter how you translate this passage, someone is going to carp. I don't think there is an adequate translation of this passage as a lot of what is going on there revolves around an ambiguity in the Greek. N.T. Wright and the New Perspective take it one way, tradititional Protestants take it another. Both can make solid points about the grammar, but in the end theology will probably bleed through any translation.I myself prefer the NRSV, but it comes at the cost of having to be a more mature reader. When you are making a translation for a broader range of reading levels, you have to make compromises, which the NIV does.
mnn727 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I like the NIV for its readability, it does however have a slight evangelical slant to it.
maklelan Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 These remain unchanged in the NIV 2011. I don't have the Hebrew background to comment on this at all, but I did look up the Septuagint for Deut 32:43 and it is greatly expanded over the NIV (and I presume the Masoretic). It doesn't say "and let all the angels worship him." I am curious as to why they pulled this one in and not the rest of the Septuagint expansion. I don't see what this adds to an Evangelical theology in any case.It protects the text from statements that conflict with an Evangelical theology. It's bizarre, though, in light of the fact that Ps 97:7 quotes the original version, and it is correctly translated in the NIV: "worship him, all you gods."The NIV 2011 version has corrected this to read "the smallest of all seeds on earth."Yes, it has, but it perpetuates a number of the other ideological manipulations, and in the long run will probably be marginalized, as was the TNIV. No matter how you translate this passage, someone is going to carp. I don't think there is an adequate translation of this passage as a lot of what is going on there revolves around an ambiguity in the Greek. N.T. Wright and the New Perspective take it one way, tradititional Protestants take it another. Both can make solid points about the grammar, but in the end theology will probably bleed through any translation.I myself prefer the NRSV, but it comes at the cost of having to be a more mature reader. When you are making a translation for a broader range of reading levels, you have to make compromises, which the NIV does.I don't believe the issues I've pointed out, and the numerous others, are a matter of compromises for the sake of readability. There's no reason that Jer 7:22 is less readable being accurately translated. They're mostly a question of theological sensitivity.
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Which King James Version is the true one 1611 or 1629? Edited March 13, 2012 by KevinG
Saints Alive Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 We all know the JST is the one and only true translation
Damien the Leper Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I don't care for it. I prefer the NRSV.I have heard many criticisms concerning the NIV. Even worse now is the TNIV. It is still taking a good bludgeoning. I did a search for criticisms against the TNIV and came up with this Christian Apologetics podcast:http://backpackradio.com/
Doctrine 612 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 the way i see it pretty soon were going to have a nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniv bible lol
Nominee Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I use the KJV. It is what I was taught with as a child in a Pentecostal church and now as LDS I still use it (in my quad) and to be honest I struggle to read from other versions. I'm so used to the thees and thous. I consider it the most reliable.
Alan Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 I like the NIV for the Old Testament and for some of the less familiar parts of the New. I do find that it almost always ruins familiar and easy to understand passages in the KJV (eg. armour of God, sermon on the mount etc) for what appears to be no particular reason. I picked up my copy the other day and began to read in Acts and really enjoyed it as it was a part of Acts that I hadn't read often because it is quite clumsy in the KJV. I also regularly look at the NRSV but I don't like it's politically correct gender "equality".When my wife taught the Gospel Doctrine class she often read the NIV first before then reading the KJV assignment and found her understanding enhanced.I guess it's horses for courses, though I do think that the KJV is becoming increasingly difficult for people, especially non or new Christians, to understand. I suspect the church will one day have to embrace another English translation but I know there are problems with copyrights etc. I had great hopes for the NKJV at one time but found it to be a disappointment.
Blah Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 I guess it's horses for courses, though I do think that the KJV is becoming increasingly difficult for people, especially non or new Christians, to understand. I suspect the church will one day have to embrace another English translation but I know there are problems with copyrights etc. I had great hopes for the NKJV at one time but found it to be a disappointment.Just out of curiosity, what disappointed you about the NKJV?
Alan Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Just out of curiosity, what disappointed you about the NKJV?Good question. I think the answer is that it didn't meet my expectations. I fully realise that my expectations are, perhaps, not a valid way to judge scripture; however, I guess I expected the NKJV to be the same as the KJV with all the "thee's", "thou's" and "eth's" removed. But the changes were greater than that.
Recommended Posts