Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | kalos | 15897 | ||
Are you looking for a highly accurate version or a more readable version? The NIV is BOTH highly accurate and readable. A translation need not be literal to be accurate. |
||||||
2 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15901 | ||
I agree with the statement that a translation does not need to follow Greek word order and sentence structure and translate word for word in order to be an accurate text. However, it must stay accurate to the original text as much as possible. For instance the Greek phrase "kata hemeran" means literally "according to the day." However, we understand it to mean in English "daily." Translating this phrase as "daily" does no harm to the text. However, the NIV has a practice of changing words (like substituting "Jesus and the disciples" for "they", etc.) and removing relative pronouns without indicating it. This may be an accurate explanation of what is happening in a particular passage, but it is not an accurate translation of the Greek text. The result is a very readable text, but one that is not as accurate as it could be. Frequently the NIV sacrifices accuracy for readability. For a highly accurate and highly readable version I would recommend the New King James Version. In addition, the World English Bible is also a very accurate and readable translation. And if you're looking for accuracy, try the NASB, the LITV, or the Analytical-Literal Translation (www.dtl.org) In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
3 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15903 | ||
koinekid: Your answer shows much wisdom and a knowledge of the subject. We are in agreement on your main points. I would agree entirely if you said, "Frequently the NIV sacrifices an overly wooden literalness for readability." (Please note, I am not defending the NIV because it is my favorite translation. That honor goes to the New American Standard Bible. My second favorite would be the New King James Version.) I don't mean to criticize you in any way or to be nit-picky. But when the NIV substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they," this is a good example of translation that is accurate, although not literal. If "they" means "Jesus and the disciples," then is not "they" an accurate translation? I could see your point if the NIV substituted "Caiaphas and his henchmen" for "they." That would be inaccurate. But the NIV does not do that, does it? It accurately substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they." Again, in no way am I saying that your ideas are wrong. I would be the first to acknowledge that you do know what you're talking about. In your post I agree with you far more than I disagree. Thank you for your posting, which I find, on the whole, to be both accurate and readable. :-) |
||||||