Deborah_ Posted July 28, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 881 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2015 Now personally, I do like the NIV. I was put off the KJV as a child because it was incomprehensible, then was converted as a teenager through reading the Good News version. The NIV came out shortly afterwards, and seemed to be the perfect blend of modern language yet fairly close accuracy. I have used it ever since, and am now so familiar with it that nothing else quite matches up. The vast majority of the manuscript differences are put in footnotes, so you can still read them if you want to. The TNIV was very unpopular (and I don't think that was just because of its gender-neutrality). The new (2011) version of the NIV is much better. The gender-neutrality takes a bit of getting used to ("brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers", in the NT letters) but I actually find it helpful when it makes a clear distinction between the Greek 'anthropos' (gender-neutral person, 'man') and 'aner' (male person, man). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted July 31, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 881 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 31, 2015 No translation says 'the same thing that was in the original manuscripts'. It's a translation... I don't see a big problem with the gender neutrality. It's just making explicit something that was previously implicit; it doesn't change the meaning of the text.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted July 31, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 881 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 31, 2015 It changes the text in that none of the original manuscripts were worded that way. The original manuscripts that were in use were the Textus Receptus, and the KJV Bible was translated from that. When the translation occurred, it was a sincere attempt to get it as close to the original meaning as possible. The new translations for the most part begin with manuscripts found at a later time that are known as the Alexandrian and Egyptian text, and the reason portions of the text are relegated to footnotes in those translations is those manuscripts didn't contain them. They are only acknowledging that all the other manuscripts did contain them. In the case of the TNIV and now the NIV being gender neutral, they literally made a decision to alter the original text to fit their agenda. The TNIV was condemned by many in the Christian community for that reason, and since the current NIV has continued to promote this same deception, it is no better. It's a way of translating the text, not a deception. It is what the text means. You don't have to like the way they do it, but it doesn't set out to deceive. The NIV is one of the worst translations on the market if you are trying to get something that is accurate. On that subject, we will just have to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 31, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 31, 2015 .KJV here lol I only need one bible except when it get's worn out and I have to get a new one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted August 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 881 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 1, 2015 @ Deborah. When the Bible is translated and done in a way where those writing it have deliberately changed the text to make is say something it never did, that is a deception. What the NIV translators did is no different than what the New World Translation did to make the Bible come out better for the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were trying to create a non-sexist Bible, but it sounded better to say gender neutral. If a Bible teacher or preacher begins with text from the NIV, I have no confidence in what they are saying to be correct because their translation is incorrect. Butero, can I be sure that I understand you correctly. Where the writers of the NT letters addressed the churches using the Greek word for 'brothers', do you think they meant just 'brothers' or were they (by implication) including the 'sisters' as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted August 1, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 1, 2015 Do we have to argue everything? The question was asked "What is Your Favorite Bible Translations and Why". But from what I have read here it seems no one can answer that question without being ridiculed by someone who happens to prefer a different translation of the Bible as their favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proof Posted August 1, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 165 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 217 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/09/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 1, 2015 I was raised on NIV. So it's my go-to most of the time. However, I also use ESV and NSAB. For my kids, until they are a little older and can understand other versions a little better, I got them NLT. I don't generally use KJV at least not in discussions because I think it is commonly mis-interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky Posted August 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 508 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/09/1985 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I personally use the 1984 NIV for general reading and the ESV for deeper study. Personal preference on both. I can see why people use the King James, but I think those who hold to that translation as the only translation should show those of us who do a little grace, likewise we how use modern translations should bare with our King James Only brothers and sisters with patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted August 2, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Share Posted August 2, 2015 My favourite Bible translation is the one from Hebrew and Greek into English. I can't read it otherwise. That's why French, German and Spanish Bibles are useless to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The Amplified Bible — I love the extra and thorough meanings included in the parentheses and brackets—it really helps with thorough understanding of the passages (my favorite was NIV growing up, then Young’s Literal, and now AMP). Some comparisons between the Amplified Bible and the NIV translations: John 14:16, AMP: And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter (Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, Strengthener, and Standby), that He may remain with you forever— vs. John 14:16, NIV: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ** John 14:18, AMP: I will not leave you as orphans [comfortless, desolate, bereaved, forlorn, helpless]; I will come [back] to you. vs. John 14:18, NIV: I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. ** Philippians 2:12, AMP: Therefore, my dear ones, as you have always obeyed [my suggestions], so now, not only [with the enthusiasm you would show] in my presence but much more because I am absent, work out (cultivate, carry out to the goal, and fully complete) your own salvation with reverence and awe and trembling (self-distrust, with serious caution, tenderness of conscience, watchfulness against temptation, timidly shrinking from whatever might offend God and discredit the name of Christ). vs. Philippians 2:12, NIV: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, ** Luke 6:20, AMP: And solemnly lifting up His eyes on His disciples, He said: Blessed (happy— with life-joy and satisfaction in God’s favor and salvation, apart from your outward condition— and to be envied) are you poor and lowly and afflicted (destitute of wealth, influence, position, and honor), for the kingdom of God is yours! vs. Luke 6:20, NIV: Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ** Luke 6:36, AMP: So be merciful (sympathetic, tender, responsive, and compassionate) even as your Father is [all these]. vs. Luke 6:36, NIV: Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. ** Colossians 3:12, AMP: Clothe yourselves therefore, as God’s own chosen ones (His own picked representatives), [who are] purified and holy and well-beloved [by God Himself, by putting on behavior marked by] tenderhearted pity and mercy, kind feeling, a lowly opinion of yourselves, gentle ways, [and] patience [which is tireless and long-suffering, and has the power to endure whatever comes, with good temper]. vs. Colossians 3:12, NIV: Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts