Subject: is the NIV a good bible to read? |
Bible Note: CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS NOTE. This is a re-post of a previous Note -- with a correction added. The corrected copy is in paragraph three. The corrected sentence is: *If "they" means "Jesus and the disciples," then is not "Jesus and the disciples" an accurate, although not literal, translation?* 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 had 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 "Jesus and the disciples" an accurate, although not literal, 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. :-) |