Anyone know anything about the NIV2011?

[endtimewarrior]

Both translations try to translate the texts with the closest meaning possible. You cannot translate a text 'word for word' or 'literally'.

Duh...otay...Professor.

 

[MenWithoutHate]

If I remember correctly, the English language is the hardest to learn overall because it does't really match any other language grammatically.

English is one of the easiest languages to learn because it is so simplified, which is why its grammar is so strange.

 

[MenWithoutHate]

Duh...otay...Professor.

If you are going to make claims, like, calling a translation 'garbage', you should be able to explain the reason.

 

[endtimewarrior]

I suppose the writers of this article in the Christian Post didn't know what they were talking about when they called them "word-for-word" versus "thought-for-thought" translations. Did they Professor?

Click Here

 

[Joy4Him]

Can someone address the gender-neutral language in the NIV like I asked about in my OP?

Thanks.

 

[endtimewarrior]

Can someone address the gender-neutral language in the NIV like I asked about in my OP?

Thanks.

It's addressed in the article I just posted.

 

[Joy4Him]

It's addressed in the article I just posted.

I've read this article before. The article just speaks of people's preference for what type of bible they prefer using. Doesn't speak about the gender-neutral language making the NIV an accurate/reliable translation or not.

 

[MenWithoutHate]

I suppose the writers of this article in the Christian Post didn't know what they were talking about when they called them "word-for-word" versus "thought-for-thought" translations. Did they Professor?

The Christian Post is referring to a poll conducted by another group which asked audiences of people like you, which translation style they preferred.

If the New York times refers to a poll conducted by a group asking whether or not more people believe in aliens or bigfooot, does that make aliens real?

There is no such thing as word for word. In another topic, I was discussing scripture on this verse - so I'll prove the issue to you.



KJV:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

word for word:
"this is disciple who testimony gives about these and wrote this and know that true is testimony his"

Greek can put words in any order it wants. English MUST have words in a certain order or else it doesn't translate.

 

[endtimewarrior]

The following charts show the differences between word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase: Click Here

 

[endtimewarrior]

Here is another resource that calls the translations "word-for-word": Click Here

 

[abysmul]

Here is another resource that calls the translations "word-for-word": Click Here

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation | Daniel B. Wallace

 

[endtimewarrior]

You have made your point but I disagree with it.

Translations are called "word-for-word". These translations may not be exactly word-for-word translations but the translators of the text made every effort to be faithful to render a word-for-word reading. That is why they are called word-for-word. Word-for-word translations clearly exist as I have already shown by the several sources that I have sited. Unless you have anything more fruitful to add I am finished with this conversation.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Hey endtimewarrior! If you can't wrap your head around the fact that a literal word-for-word translation is impossible, maybe this can help you: do you know why your beloved KJV italicizes some words? Because they're additions not found in the original texts used in the translation. The translators were (and continue to be to this day) forced to insert words in certain areas to make the text readable in English.

Have a good one.

 

[Joy4Him]

Really? 4 pages later and no one can address my actual question, instead you just argue off topic among yourselves. Less than helpful.

 

[Norah63]

How do we know who our 'cohorts' are?

Joy4Him did you mean the one you spoke of made no diffrence in gender,
in it's scripture? How odd that would seem to me.
I would say buy what ever one you would read the most. The Spirit can help you understand and that is the best way.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I asked this on another board but it was never answered so I hope someone here can help.


Is anyone hear familiar with the NIV 2011, by that I mean actually read it. I've read about the controversy surrounding it and have compared it to other translations but since I'm not a scholar I really don't know. Seems most of what I read about the controversy over the NIV 2011 is rather reactionary and based on just what they've heard about it.

I'm considering buying a hard copy if the NIV but I don't want to waste my money if it really is an untrustworthy translation. A friend of mine mentioned that the NLT has the same gender-nuetral language in it but no one complains about it. i dont know if that is true or not but if it is why would people be ok with the NLT but not the NIV. Thanks for any help.

For my pesonal Bible Study I use NIV 1984, and the KJV. I mainly use the KJV for church and Bible Study at church, but sometimes I can't figure out the KJV so that is why I use both. I have not read NIV 2011. I love both.KJV, and NIV, but, sometimes I feel like the KJV packs the biggest punch. Like this.

Daniel 2:43

King James Version (KJV)

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.




Daniel 2:43

New International Version (NIV)

43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.


See, the NIV says nothing about THEY will mingle themselves with the seed of men. The meaning imho is a little watered down.

 

[Norah63]

I did read on line how that it left out acts 8:37. And it does.
Sounds like quite a few liberties were taken to make it gender friendly or political correct,
by todays standards.
Really shows how we must have the Holy Spirit to lead us. Men can go astray just to make money off of changing the bible to suit the world.
Handmaid has it right, I think it is a watered down version also. Readers beware.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Personally, the NIV is near the bottom on my list. I don't like it at all. I have no use nor purpose for a gender neutral paraphrase or thought-for-thought Bible. While it's impossible to translate Hebrew and Greek into English using a word-for-word format, we can get close.

Bibles I like are...

King James Version (with and without Apocrypha)
Geneva Bible (1560 and 1599)
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Version)
Revised Standard Version (with and without Apocrypha; with Apocrypha, the expanded edition from Oxford)
Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition
English Standard Version (with and without Apocrypha; with Apocrypha, the only edition available is from Oxford)
New American Standard Bible
New King James Version
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
Orthodox Study Bible

Some of these won't interest many of you, but they're all on the top of my list from a broad spectrum of Christianity.

For Protestants: KJV, Geneva, ESV, NASB, and NKJV would be at the top for me.

At the bottom, stuff like the NIV, NLT, Message, CEB, etc. No use for Bibles that take such liberties.

In Boidae's wife's situation, perfectly acceptable to read the NIV due to her illness/disability(?). For people with reading difficulties and young kids, I'd probably go with the NLT.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I did read on line how that it left out acts 8:37. And it does.
Sounds like quite a few liberties were taken to make it gender friendly or political correct,
by todays standards.
Really shows how we must have the Holy Spirit to lead us. Men can go astray just to make money off of changing the bible to suit the world.
Handmaid has it right, I think it is a watered down version also. Readers beware.

I agree. I do believe the Holy Spirit is our ultimate teacher.

 

[MenWithoutHate]

You have made your point but I disagree with it.

Translations are called "word-for-word". These translations may not be exactly word-for-word translations but the translators of the text made every effort to be faithful to render a word-for-word reading. That is why they are called word-for-word. Word-for-word translations clearly exist as I have already shown by the several sources that I have sited. Unless you have anything more fruitful to add I am finished with this conversation.

Your 'sources' are internet sites. I can find internet sites on just about anything, that doesn't make it real. There are a multitude of problems:

1- English is not a declension language. You have to rearrange the word order of the Greek to make it fit into an English sentence.
2- Greek has words that don't translate into the English
3- English only has one mood and lacks a true separate subjunctive and imperative mood.