Subject: is the NIV a good bible to read? |
Bible Note: 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 |