Yay! I'm not alone!
My first choice is the NIV, and I'm a Calvinist, which is almost a heresy in most Calvinist circles.
I am also a Calvinist, but not in the same sense. I adhere to the five points of Calvinism regarding the Doctrines of Grace, but, otherwise, I am a Baptist. Nevertheless, I was not aware that Calvinists did not like the NIV. Which version do they use?
Ever since learning Greek and Hebrew in seminary, I have found the NIV to be absolutely remarkable.
I agree. It combines very well an accurate transmission of the original message with a clear, understandable, modern language.
Of course, I have a few bits of "beef" with it (like its aversion of the word "propitiation"), but all-in-all I think it is a fantastic translation.
Yes, so do I. No translation is perfect, and neither will suit perfectly my preferences.
I am not sure where I stand on the textual issue, however. But, the NIV is faithful, clear, very readable, and pleasant to use.
Well, about the textual issue, I tend to favour dynamic translations. Complete paraphrases should be avoided, but one should not feel ‘stuck’ with the sentence structure or particular expressions in the original language, as literal translators do. A translator has the freedom to shift word order — and even get entirely new words or remove unnecessary words —, in order to convey the original meaning in the most natural way in the target language. Forcing oneself to create an exaggeratedly literal correspondence makes weird and/or incomprehensible sentences.
I know these things because I am an amateur translator between Portuguese and English. I do not translate necessarily literally, but I do have to find a way to convey every single thing that is said (without paraphrasing), even if it means changing structure or idioms (without being literal). I have found that a dynamic translation is the best method.
I really hate it when I talk about this with people and they strongly argue in favour of a literal translation (because, in their minds, it is the best method — a mentality which I understand, because, to the layman, being literal sounds like the best way to preserve original meaning), but then I ask them: ‘Do you have any knowledge about Greek?’ — ‘No.’ — ‘Hebrew?’ — ‘No.’ — ‘Aramaic?’ — ‘No.’ — ‘So, no knowledge of any biblical language. What about any language other than your mother tongue?’ — ‘None.’ — ‘So, you have absolutely no experience with any sort of translation whatsoever, have you?’ — ‘No, I haven't.’ — ‘Then, how can you tell me that literal correspondence is the best way to translate, when I have translated and know what I am talking about and you have not and do not know?’
About textual criticism, I like the form used by the NIV (which is the one mostly used today), which is, if memory serves me right, eclectic text. It sounds better.
