Bible Question: I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest, but what does anybody think of the NIV? I've never read it(prefering the KJV, but am not "KJV ONLY") but have heard some negative comments on it, even read some of the many differences between it and other translations. Any comments? |
Bible Answer: The King James Version and the Bible were synonymous terms when I was a boy in Sunday School, because back then we didn't have the choices in translations that we have today. Nobody seemed to worry much about how literal the King James was or what text it was translated from. In the tiny town of Trenton in north Georgia where I grew up in the 1940's, I suppose we took it for granted that Jesus used the King James and thus it was plenty good for us. I fully believed that Jesus spoke Jacobean English and would greet me in heaven saying, "Welcome home, thou good and faithful servant." I believed then, and believe still, that the Bible is the word of God but had no idea at that time that the King James that I was reading was, as a translation, one of the supremely great pieces of world literature as well. And even though, as the years have gone by, I've read more modern versions, I shall never be able to, nor care to, forsake my love for the King James. Yet at the same time, it is a perfectly silly notion to cling to the King James only. There is no earthly reason not to examine other more modern versions, not only because the English language has changed dramatically in 400 years but also because many more manuscripts are available to the translators of today than were available when the King James translators did their work. Additionally, much more knowledge of the ancient languages exists today than existed in 1611. There are a number of fine modern translations. Among the more literal, word-for-word versions there are the "established" ones, the New American Standard Bible and the New King James Version. Two newcomers in this category that bear watching are the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. There is a wide variety of versions that are less than literal. They carry various labels, like thought-for-thought, dynamic equivalence, or paraphrased, all of which mean essentially the same thing. The translators' aim, so they state, is to render into contemporary English the essential meaning, but not necessarily the corresponding words, that the writers were trying to convey in their original languages. Of the crop of Bible versions that subscribe to this philosophy of translation, the New International Version is the front runner. The New Living Translation is another popular version of this ilk. These paraphrased renditions have their supporters, although I'm not one of them. It is my view that the task of translating word-for-word is difficult enough and places a heavy enough burden on the translator to get it right, to put in only what the manuscript says and to leave out his own interpretation. The burden becomes even heavier and the temptation to interpret even stronger when the attempt is made to render into the receptor language, not merely the words, but the meaning that the writer had in mind when he wrote the original. This method of translation fairly invites interpretation. The paraphrased versions tend to be smoother and easier to read than the more formal versions, and they have their uses, especially for readers for whom English is not their native tongue, or for readers who have limited language skills. Otherwise, for the rest of us, I would not recommend the NIV or any other of the paraphrased versions. --Hank |