Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15935 | ||
kalos, Thanks for the response, and God bless you as you continue to post on this forum. I too agree with much of what your post says, however our two statements "sacrificing accuracy for readability", and "sacrificing overly woodenness for readability" are very different. I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. Translating "they" when the Greek text has "they" does not denote woodenness in the translation. It denotes faithfulness to the text. Could an argument be made that since the Greek language makes extensive usage of pronouns and conjunctions, and the English does not, these could be dropped without altering the overall meaning of the passage. Certainly the argument could be made. But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. I am not attempting to start a Bible versions debate on this forum. There are other places on the net for such things. I am simply stating what I perceive the facts to be. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
2 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 16058 | ||
KOINEKID: I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. BJANKO: Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity. If you don't like the NIV, that's fine. But to say that it sacrifices accuracy is itself an inaccurate claim. The NIV has deficiencies just like any other translation; but it is second only to the NASB in terms of communicating the original text with great accuracy. In some cases, it improves on the NASB because it goes beyond the literal translation and gives the "sense" of a word or term. Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original. All translations have their strong points and weak points. KOINEKID: But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. BJANKO: If someone really wants the "text itself" to be conveyed, then I would recommend reading the Greek originals. If you want a "translation" of the Greek into English, though, you will have to give up the "text itself" and settle for the receptor language (English) and all its inadequacies in expressing the original. "Accurately conveying the meaning," which you seem to admit that the NIV does, is exactly what a translation is supposed to do! Again, the NIV isn't perfect, but it is excellent, and well deserves to be among the top three or four translations out there, (the others being NASB, NKJV, and KJV). -- bjanko |
||||||
3 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16091 | ||
bjanko, I assure you that nothing derogatory was meant by my statement. "You write," Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity." That doesn't mean I'm using speaking with impunity. I am not. I'm simply stating facts (the NIV does not tell us when it removes relative pronouns or articles) and rendering opinions based on these facts (this is not faithful to the original Greek text). The NIV does not accurately convey the Greek text itself. You wrote, "Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original." That is exactly my point. In order to make the text more readable the NIV sacrifice accuracy. The NASB is more accurate because it sticks closer to the original. This is all I am saying. I'll be blunt. I prefer many translations over the NIV, but that doesn't mean I hate it. I would encourage the believers to use other translations (when studying Scripture at least), but will not condemn anyone for using it. My favorite Old Testament professor at Liberty reads the NIV, studies from the NASB, and teaches from the KJV. I read from the NKJV and NLT, study from the NKJV, KJV, and original Greek, and teach from the NKJV. He is twice the scholar I am and then some, and he reads from the NIV. I would recommend for someone who desires to read an accurate translation of the originals to use the NKJV Greek - English Interlinear New Testament (It's not the NKJV text itself, but a word for word translation from the Majority Text). I don't possess one, but have heard wonderful things. Another good resource is Interlinear Hebrew - Greek - English Bible edited by Jay Green. The NT is based on the TR and the OT on the Masoretic text. God bless In Christ koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
4 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16092 | ||
koinekid: You write: "My favorite Old Testament professor at Liberty reads the NIV, studies from the NASB, and teaches from the KJV." I LIKE this idea and the way you stated it. For years, I have done general reading in one translation, studying in another and teaching from yet another. Am I reading three different Bibles? No, I am reading three different translations of one and the same Bible. (Currently, I like to read from the ASV 1901 or the HCSB NT, study from the NASB and the NKJV, and teach my high school Sunday School class out of various translations, including the NIV, TEV, and others. I use many study Bibles and translations to study and research answers to post on the Forum. I find the two most useful translations to be the NASB and the Amplified. But, I have a strong preference for the translations that follow the King James tradition, e.g. ASV 1901, NASB and NKJV, etc.) And we are in 100 percent agreement re the NASB. It is, just as I have been saying for the last 30 years, "the most literally accurate Bible translation in the English language." |
||||||