counsel on which Bible translation to use

[Jerusalem Blade]

Although I am AV priority, I often read passages I am going through in a number of versions (as well the Greek and Hebrew) to see if translation differences bring more to light. By my reading chair I have the NIV 1984, ESV, NASB, old Living Bible, MKJV, NKJV, plus a number of others on a nearby shelf. I even put some of the other translations renderings in my AV margin, along with notes or cross-references.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

I go back and forth between the NIV and the ESV depending on what I'm doing with Scripture.

When my wife and I sit down to read (we're reading through the entire Bible) we read from the NIV for the simple and fluent flow of the text, but when we sit down to study Scripture, we always use the ESV for that. We often "go to the Greek" which is easier with the ESV. We always have different translations at the ready to cross-reference, including the NIV, NKJV, KJV, etc...

Then there is also a case where I really love a particular rendering of a passage, so even when I'm reading the ESV, I'm hearing Psalm 51 in the KJV.

I don't think this as big of a "dilemma" as I think you're making it out to be. Read what makes you comfortable and study what makes you comfortable.

Both the ESV and NKJV are solid translations regardless of what the KJV "truthers" out there will tell you about both of them lol. There are too many people who are violently for or against different translations for reasons that don't really make a lot of sense in the grand scheme of things.

Either way, good luck! I'm sure everything will work out find. Families and churches shouldn't dissolve because of translation preferences (unless they are inherently bad - NWT - as Joe pointed out earlier).

 

[Theophilus73]

Jimmy,
Thanks for the in-depth exposition! I'm not super fond of the ESV's Englisg either, but had been told by a "scholar" the ESV rendering of these verses was more accurate. Prov 18:17 in action!
Emerson

 

[JimmyH]

Jimmy,
Thanks for the in-depth exposition! I'm not super fond of the ESV's Englisg either, but had been told by a "scholar" the ESV rendering of these verses was more accurate. Prov 18:17 in action!
Emerson

You're very welcome Emerson. I'm sure that if we cherry pick verses we can find them 'more accurate' in one mainstream translation as opposed to another. That is why, as Brian notes in post # 32, it is profitable to cross reference various English translations if the meaning/accuracy is not clear or sure.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Jimmy,
Thanks for the in-depth exposition! I'm not super fond of the ESV's Englisg either, but had been told by a "scholar" the ESV rendering of these verses was more accurate. Prov 18:17 in action!
Emerson

You're very welcome Emerson. I'm sure that if we cherry pick verses we can find them 'more accurate' in one mainstream translation as opposed to another. That is why, as Brian notes in post # 32, it is profitable to cross reference various English translations if the meaning/accuracy is not clear or sure.

Good point Jimmy. I utilize many English translations, even the NIV lol. We are super blessed in the English world we have so many resources to understand God's word.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

We are super blessed in the English world we have so many resources to understand God's word.

Absolutely. To think that a majority of languages don't even have a complete translation of the entire canon is extremely painful for me. I praise God that I don't have to look very far to find a plethora of resources available at my fingertips while others have to search high and low to find anything that they can use.

 

[Edward]

I go back and forth between the NIV

Let's make sure we are all on the same page here. When you say NIV, what do you mean? 1984? TNIV? 2011?

The 1984 is OK, the TNIV should be burned, and the 2011 should be tagged for reference and comparison only, but should not be routinely used.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

1984? TNIV? 2011?

I use both the 1984 and 2011. I don't, personally, think that the NIV in any version should be routinely used for STUDY due to the translation methodology, but I see no problem in using either as a general "reading" Bible. I may be in the minority here on PB (I'm new and didn't do a forum-wide search on the topic), but I have no MAJOR quandaries with the 2011 version. Some of the improvements over the 1984 ("flesh" instead of "sinful nature," for example) make up for the gender neutrality issues that are unneeded and ill-advised. Both the 1984 and 2011 provide the same overarching message of the gospel. I'm aware of the issues with Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2, but that's a completely separate issue, and again, doesn't change the gospel in any way.

You can't find a 1984 NIV in book stores anymore, so what would you have a person do? Buy the NLT or MSG or the Joyce Meyer Annotated AMP version? Or would you have them buy the NIV(2011) as a general-purpose reading Bible? I'd tell them to buy the 2011 every time. The message isn't changed in any significant way. To tell people to go out of their way to find a 1984 version because of a few issues with gender neutrality that isn't properly translated from the original languages (but some would say are implied - not me, but some - by the context, and in no real meaningful way change the message) is creating a roadblock that need not be there.

Like I said, any person serious about STUDYING Scripture and sticks with the NIV in ANY version are doing themselves a disservice, but I don't see the need for the visceral attack on the 2011 version. To me, it is all too reminiscent of the KJV folks attacking the NKJV when it came out as "unneeded" and "disingenuous" and "of the devil." Who would have thought that when the NKJV came out that it would be one of the most popular versions used by many theologians based on the hatred it received from people who thought the KJV was vastly superior?

I think we'll look back at the 2011 in 20 years and realize that we could have done a lot worse. I foresee a ton of terrible translations coming out and we will look back at the 2011 as a masterpiece compared to the "modern" translations 20 years in the future.

I didn't mention the TNIV because you'll get no argument from me on that.

 

[joebonni63]

This is kinda stupid I would get a good version of course but also with a very good binding. Binding bibles is not what it used to be and really upsets me.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

This is kinda stupid I would get a good version of course but also with a very good binding. Binding bibles is not what it used to be and really upsets me.

But what if they all have tablets and only use Bible apps on them? What then, HUH?!?! WHAT THEN?! lol - yeah, I miss some of the old bindings.

I'm a big fan of my 2015 Reformation Study Bible. One of the better bindings I've gotten in a new Bible in years.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

1984? TNIV? 2011?

I use both the 1984 and 2011. I don't, personally, think that the NIV in any version should be routinely used for STUDY due to the translation methodology, but I see no problem in using either as a general "reading" Bible. I may be in the minority here on PB (I'm new and didn't do a forum-wide search on the topic), but I have no MAJOR quandaries with the 2011 version. Some of the improvements over the 1984 ("flesh" instead of "sinful nature," for example) make up for the gender neutrality issues that are unneeded and ill-advised. Both the 1984 and 2011 provide the same overarching message of the gospel. I'm aware of the issues with Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2, but that's a completely separate issue, and again, doesn't change the gospel in any way.

You can't find a 1984 NIV in book stores anymore, so what would you have a person do? Buy the NLT or MSG or the Joyce Meyer Annotated AMP version? Or would you have them buy the NIV(2011) as a general-purpose reading Bible? I'd tell them to buy the 2011 every time. The message isn't changed in any significant way. To tell people to go out of their way to find a 1984 version because of a few issues with gender neutrality that isn't properly translated from the original languages (but some would say are implied - not me, but some - by the context, and in no real meaningful way change the message) is creating a roadblock that need not be there.

Like I said, any person serious about STUDYING Scripture and sticks with the NIV in ANY version are doing themselves a disservice, but I don't see the need for the visceral attack on the 2011 version. To me, it is all too reminiscent of the KJV folks attacking the NKJV when it came out as "unneeded" and "disingenuous" and "of the devil." Who would have thought that when the NKJV came out that it would be one of the most popular versions used by many theologians based on the hatred it received from people who thought the KJV was vastly superior?

I think we'll look back at the 2011 in 20 years and realize that we could have done a lot worse. I foresee a ton of terrible translations coming out and we will look back at the 2011 as a masterpiece compared to the "modern" translations 20 years in the future.

I didn't mention the TNIV because you'll get no argument from me on that.

CBD has quite a few 1984 NIV's still available on their website not trying to debate that's it better then the 2011 but if ya prefer the 84 they still sell em.

 

[Edward]

so what would you have a person do? Buy the NLT or MSG or the Joyce Meyer Annotated AMP version? Or would you have them buy the NIV(2011) as a general-purpose reading Bible?

No, no, no, and definitely NO.

If you must have an NIV, scour the used bookstores. They were popular enough in the 80s that a fair number are hitting the market as older folks downsize or the kids clean out the parents stuff.

If someone has trouble with ESV level English, I'd recommend a TEV paraphrase before I'd recommend a modern NIV. By the way - the ESV is rated slightly more readable than the NIV - 7.4 vs 7.8 level. New King James clocks in at 8. So if you are looking in that range, matching a ESV and a NKJV for comparison reading should work out OK. http://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide

I'm not really a big fan of the ESV, but it is what I am using most of the time because it is the 'standard' in our congregation.

I think we'll look back at the 2011 in 20 years and realize that we could have done a lot worse.

And you can do a lot better.

 

[JimmyH]

According to the late Professor Rod Decker, formerly professor of Greek and New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary, in Pennsylvania only 5% of the NIV 2011 differs from the 1984 version. In a 40 page PDF he reviews the 2011, and made a believer out of me. To the extent that I bought an Allan bound edition and have been happily using it. Professor Decker expounds on translation philosophy in his review, and makes a lot of sense In my humble opinion.

I had found a critical review of the NIV on Michael Marlow's site and I was very put off by his pointing out the translation (1984 & 2011) of αγαπητοι (beloved) as 'dear friends' in 1 John 4:1. This bothered me for a couple of days, believe it or not, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized, that in today's vernacular 'dear friends' is appropriate, that 'beloved,' as far as common use is concerned, is antiquated, I think an English speaker in the 21st century might process beloved as a romantic term from previous generations. I cannot recall hearing the term 'beloved' used outside of a romantic ballad, or film.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

And you can do a lot better.

Yeah - I agree.

I'm just saying that I think the attacks on the 2011 version are mostly unwarranted. It's the same as the attacks on the NKJV when it came out. They are valid arguments, but in the grand scheme of things they don't really matter.

Will it bring a person to a proper understanding of who Christ is? Yes.
Will it bring a person to a proper understanding of the gospel? Yes.
Will it bring a person to a proper understanding of the attributes of God? Yes.
Will it bring a person to a proper understanding of justification and sanctification? Yes.

I could go on.

This NIV84 vs NIV2011 debate, in my opinion, is one that is unnecessary. As Jimmy pointed out in post #43, there are so few changes to make this a serious debate and the ones that are made are almost all stemmed from the change in the pronouns based on the Greek. Remember, the NIV does not claim to be a pure word-for-word translation. If they did, I'd be just as outraged.

This debate is never going to die, so I'm going to make this my last post on the subject of the NIV. I apologize for even replying to Edward's original request for clarification by what I meant by NIV, because I had no intention of hijacking this thread to argue the efficacy of the NIV(2011).

 

[God'sElectSaint]

According to the late Professor Rod Decker, formerly professor of Greek and New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary, in Pennsylvania only 5% of the NIV 2011 differs from the 1984 version. In a 40 page PDF he reviews the 2011, and made a believer out of me. To the extent that I bought an Allan bound edition and have been happily using it. Professor Decker expounds on translation philosophy in his review, and makes a lot of sense In my humble opinion.

I had found a critical review of the NIV on Michael Marlow's site and I was very put off by his pointing out the translation (1984 & 2011) of αγαπητοι (beloved) as 'dear friends' in 1 John 4:1. This bothered me for a couple of days, believe it or not, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized, that in today's vernacular 'dear friends' is appropriate, that 'beloved,' as far as common use is concerned, is antiquated, I think an English speaker in the 21st century might process beloved as a romantic term from previous generations. I cannot recall hearing the term 'beloved' used outside of a romantic ballad, or film.

Jimmy I can understand your point about modern language to a degree but the Bible is thousands of years old. i think we just need to accept that we are going to have learn some strange words and concepts when studying it. I don't think more modern is necessarily good. To a degree? yeah of course but a word like "beloved" in my view is not that dated and not that hard to understand. When i first picked up a Bible in rehab I was completely biblicaly illiterate, no past experience of church or bible reading and I was reading a Gideon NKJV and the concepts in the scripture were much harder to understand then the language of the translation. I wasn't much of a reader prior to this and I had no trouble with the words of the NKJV which some consider archaic at times. Not saying there's anything wrong with the NIV 84 or 2011 but how "modern" do we need our Bibles to be? A word like "propitiation" is valuable for a Christian to learn and yes I know it's just a traditional church word but I think tradition does hold some value and in some cases should be retained. With the ESV I hear some say too dynamic/modern and others say too literal/archaic so that might mean they have found a decent balance.

 

[Edward]

only 5% of the NIV 2011 differs from the 1984 version.

If you had a glass of pure water, and a glass that was 95 percent water and 5 percent arsenic, would you say the difference was insignificant?

 

[TrustGzus]

only 5% of the NIV 2011 differs from the 1984 version.

If you had a glass of pure water, and a glass that was 95 percent water and 5 percent arsenic, would you say the difference was insignificant?

Arsenic is strong language, Edward. I've read the TNIV and 2011 cover to cover a few times. I've read as much as I can find from Grudem and others. I think it's so blown out of proportion and if I applied some of Grudem's complaints to his own Systematic Theology I'd have him burning his own book.

I think every translation has passages that even its own translators in retrospect will could have been better. Can you give some examples of things you consider "arsenic"?

 

[Edward]

I think every translation has passages that even its own translators in retrospect will could have been better. Can you give some examples of things you consider "arsenic"?

I was using the arsenic example to show that the 5% argument was not valid. If you prefer, I could use another example. Take a 20 word sentence where the verb is 'is'. change that one word (only a 5% change!) to 'isn't'. Would you consider that change 'insignificant'?

 

[TrustGzus]

I think every translation has passages that even its own translators in retrospect will could have been better. Can you give some examples of things you consider "arsenic"?

I was using the arsenic example to show that the 5% argument was not valid. If you prefer, I could use another example. Take a 20 word sentence where the verb is 'is'. change that one word (only a 5% change!) to 'isn't'. Would you consider that change 'insignificant'?

I would consider that change significant. So, examples....?

 

[JimmyH]

I don't know if this quote, attributed to Herbert Spencer, is applicable to anyone participating in this thread, but I'm sure it is applicable to many who hear that one translation or another is corrupt, ""There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

I do wonder how many people who are condemning the NIV11 have read the reviews by Daniel Wallace, or Rod Decker ? Have spent time in the NIV11 comparing verses/chapters with other translations ? I do read and compare at least.

Years ago I heard the buzz that the NIV was a dynamic equivalence translation, and therefore not to be trusted. I didn't investigate and my 1984 NIV gathered dust for a couple of decades. Glad that I did some investigating. It is a good translation in my opinion, and so far, so is the NIV11.

 

[Edward]

Only NT examples, since all I could readily find in the house was my old pocket NT that I used on EE calls. KJV and ESV added for comparison purposes.

Gender neutrality:
Acts 17:22
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. NIV2011

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. NIV84

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ESV

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. KJV

Personal change:
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here! fn 2 Corinthians 5:17 Or Christ, that person is a new creation. NIV 2011

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; The old has gone, the new has come NIV84

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.[a] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. ESV

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. KJV

Grasping (or stealing) vs. using:
Phil. 2:6
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! NIV2011

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! NIV84

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ESV

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. KJV

Homosexuality - perversion or not?Is adultery included in imorrality?
1 Timothy 1:10

for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine NIV2011

for adulterers and pervert, for slave traders, liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine NIV84

the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ESV

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; KJV



-----
By the way, this article doesn't seem to support the 5% argument set out above. I'm not going to count the changes myself to see if it really is 5% or about 40% of the verses which changed 84 to 11. http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/

Note on the 'grasped' issue above, the translators claim to have suddenly found a better translation than had been known for centuries.

 

[Edward]

have read the reviews by Daniel Wallace, or Rod Decker

Can't say I've ever heard of Daniel Wallace. Found two on Wikipedia. Guessing you are referring to the one at DTS who got his training at Biola and DTS. So I would expect a dispensational/evangelical take from him.

 

[TrustGzus]

have read the reviews by Daniel Wallace, or Rod Decker

Can't say I've ever heard of Daniel Wallace. Found two on Wikipedia. Guessing you are referring to the one at DTS who got his training at Biola and DTS. So I would expect a dispensational/evangelical take from him.

Edward, yes, the DTS guy. Yes, I'm sure he must be Dispensational to teach at DTS, but never heard him on the subject. His subject expertise is Greek grammar and manuscript evidence. He appears to be good buddies with James White. Gàve White a good endorsement on The Potter's Freedom.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'd recommend a TEV paraphrase before I'd recommend a modern NIV.

The TEV (and GNB and GNT) is basically a liberal version that was revised in 1992 to include inclusive language. It is altogether worse than any edition of the NIV.

If someone finds the NKJV or ESV too hard, he should try the HCSB which is pretty close to the reading level of the NIV and is a conservative evangelical translation. At least one of the translators posts here from time to time.