What do you think of the N.I.V. and T.N.I.V.?

[barryrob]

What do you think of the N.I.V. and T.N.I.V.?

 

[Singermom]

I like NIV. I can understand NIV. I will sometimes do a comparison to others, but NIV is my regular.

I don't even know what TNIV is.

 

[ebia]

They are a good balance between accessibility and precision, but the language is a bit bland (at least to my English ears), and they aren't crash-hot at translating Paul.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Nothing wrong with them but remember they are not word-for-word translations so in some cases the NIV acts more like a commentary than a translation. It's better to combine the NIV with a word-for-word translation like KJV, NKJV, or NASB which gives a better representation of God's actual words as written by the original authors.

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star" - Isaiah 14:12 NIV referencing Satan."I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." - Revelation 22:16 NIV referencing Jesus.

Why does the NIV equate Satan and Jesus?


If you want to know some interesting info regarding the NIV, please google the following:
*Virginia Mollenkott
*Dr. Marten Woudstra
*Rupert Murdoch

 

[heritage36]

My wife uses the NIV as her primary version she reads, and she likes it, and I trust her judgement so I think its a good version. No English version is perfect in my opinion, but it seems to be decent. You just have to know to check certain things against the Hebrew/Greek. It is a little strange that it is the only version I am aware of that is copyrighted, and I believe rupert murdoch owns those rights if I recall correctly, who I believe is athiest, but I am not positive on all that, just thought I heard that.

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

My wife uses the NIV as her primary version she reads, and she likes it, and I trust her judgement so I think its a good version. No English version is perfect in my opinion, but it seems to be decent. You just have to know to check certain things against the Hebrew/Greek. It is a little strange that it is the only version I am aware of that is copyrighted, and I believe rupert murdoch owns those rights if I recall correctly, who I believe is athiest, but I am not positive on all that, just thought I heard that.

Which Greek do you check against? Nestle-Aland, USB, Westcott-Hort, Majority Text, Textus Receptus? They all differ.

Rupert Murdoch owns the rights to it, along with several pornography stations. Add on the fact that there were two unrepentant, open homosexuals on the translation team, that it is endorsed by the Catholic church, that it equates Satan & Jesus as the same person, and that it is translated out of a Greek New Testament that relies on corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts, and I think we can safely say it is not an okay translation. It is garbage.

 

[Look4him]

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star" - Isaiah 14:12 NIV referencing Satan."I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." - Revelation 22:16 NIV referencing Jesus.

Why does the NIV equate Satan and Jesus?

-------------------------------
The NIV is not equating Satan and Jesus. The KJV has an alternate reading of Lucifer as "O day starre." Do you think the KJV it is trying to equate that with 2 Peter 1:19?

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Look4him

 

[heritage36]

Which Greek do you check against? Nestle-Aland, USB, Westcott-Hort, Majority Text, Textus Receptus? They all differ.

Rupert Murdoch owns the rights to it, along with several pornography stations. Add on the fact that there were two unrepentant, open homosexuals on the translation team, that it is endorsed by the Catholic church, that it equates Satan & Jesus as the same person, and that it is translated out of a Greek New Testament that relies on corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts, and I think we can safely say it is not an okay translation. It is garbage.

I am aware there are different Greek versions and they differ, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand here. Thank you though for confirming what I believed I heard about Murdoch owning those rights.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Which Greek do you check against? Nestle-Aland, USB, Westcott-Hort, Majority Text, Textus Receptus? They all differ.

Rupert Murdoch owns the rights to it, along with several pornography stations. Add on the fact that there were two unrepentant, open homosexuals on the translation team, that it is endorsed by the Catholic church, that it equates Satan & Jesus as the same person, and that it is translated out of a Greek New Testament that relies on corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts, and I think we can safely say it is not an okay translation. It is garbage.

So what you are saying is it doesn't matter what the NIV says, it only matters who wrote it, who publishes it, and who approves it? (I'll ignore your KVO arguments as they are disputed)

Let's look at the number of souls saved by reading the NIV. What does that say about God's opinion on the translation? If the NIV speaks nothing but lies it seems that no one would be led to the Lord through it, correct?

 

[Biblewriter]

Nothing wrong with them but remember they are not word-for-word translations so in some cases the NIV acts more like a commentary than a translation. It's better to combine the NIV with a word-for-word translation like KJV, NKJV, or NASB which gives a better representation of God's actual words as written by the original authors.

Anyone with even a particle of understanding knows that a word-for-word translation is basically unreadable in the new language. The KJV, the NLJV, and the NASB cannot all be word-for-word translations, because they are all different.

That said, many feel a need for a translation that reflects modern speech better than the KJV. But almost all modern translations are based on the Nestle text. This text relies heavily upon the Vatacanus and the Sinaiticus, two very old
manuscripts that display evidence of willful changes inserted into the text. I for one, cannot undersyand how it can be considered logical to give any credence whatsoever to any manuscript that contains even one case of an apparently willfully inserted change in the text.

The only modern translation that is not based on the Nestle text is the NKJV.

 

[dcyates]

The NIV is a more than adequate translation. It is, however, translated specifically for a North American audience and thus utilizes certain idioms that may be perfectly familiar to Americans and Canadians, but less so to English speakers from other parts of the world.
The TNIV is also a fine translation. And, in light of more recent developments in both Pauline scholarship and in the field of textual criticism and translation, it has the added bonus of taking care of certain Pauline texts that prove more troublesome than necessary in interpreting Paul, and where the NIV translators now realize they probably could have made better translation decisions.

 

[dcyates]

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star" - Isaiah 14:12 NIV referencing Satan."I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." - Revelation 22:16 NIV referencing Jesus.

Why does the NIV equate Satan and Jesus?

Please forgive my bluntness, but it's nothing less than ridiculous - not to mention insulting - to think that the translators of the NIV were deliberately "equating Satan and Jesus."
Moreover, the Hebrew word used here is [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]hēlēl, which designates the light shining from celestial bodies. We find in Job the same word used five (maybe six; cf. 25.5) times and at least twice to describe the shining of the sun (29.3; 31.26). Here in Isa. 14.12, it's used as part of a 'taunt song' to mock the lofty pretensions of the king of Babylon, who arrogated to himself divine authority and sought to occupy a place above the pantheon of ancient Near Eastern gods - including, of course, the Israelite God, YHWH. The song itself employs Canaanite mythology where Athar, son of Athirat, attempted to usurp and assume the throne of Baal, the head Canaanite god (who is also called el elyon, or 'god most high'; cf. v. 14). After his ultimate failure he is consigned to live out his punishment as the Morning Star (the planet Venus to us), who daily attempts to scale the heavens, but whose light is inevitably dimmed each time by the strengthening rays of the sun. During this daily reenactment, the Morning Star appears to descend (or "fall") from what heights it is able to attain, back down to earth and even beyond into the depths of Sheol (v. 15). This interpretation is verified by the reference to Mount Zaphon, "the Mount of Assembly," which was to the ancient Canaanites what Mount Olympus was to the ancient Greeks.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

If you want to know some interesting info regarding the NIV, please google the following:

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]*Virginia Mollenkott[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]*Dr. Marten Woudstra[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]*Rupert Murdoch[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Given that most people would either not know who these people are, or how they are in any way connected to the NIV, what does it matter?[/FONT]

 

[dcyates]

Which Greek do you check against? Nestle-Aland, USB, Westcott-Hort, Majority Text, Textus Receptus? They all differ.

Rupert Murdoch owns the rights to it, along with several pornography stations. Add on the fact that there were two unrepentant, open homosexuals on the translation team, that it is endorsed by the Catholic church, that it equates Satan & Jesus as the same person, and that it is translated out of a Greek New Testament that relies on corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts, and I think we can safely say it is not an okay translation. It is garbage.

Don't tell me: You're one of those KJV-only guys, aren't you?

Re: Rupert Murdoch and the alleged "two unrepentant, open homosexuals on the translation team."
Are you telling us that there were actual sinners involved with the translation of the NIV?!? Gasp!!! This is opposed to the morally perfect saints who were involved with the translation of the KJV, of course.
Re: It being "endorsed by the Catholic Church."
So?
Re: It "equates Satan & Jesus as the same person."
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
Re: It "is translated out of a Greek New Testament that relies on corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts."
The KJV is translated using the Textus Receptus, published in 1550 by Robert Stephanus in Paris, which essentially reproduced Erasmus' text of 1535. Erasmus had simply gathered together what bits, pieces, and scraps of Greek NT mss that he could and put them together into one text. He knew that his mss were woefully incomplete and even had to take those portions that he was missing from the Latin Vulgate and RE-translate them back into Greek. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the KJV is an excellent translation of the Bible, but it certainly shouldn't be placed high above all other translations on the basis of its NT portion being derived from the Textus Receptus.

The end result is: No, I don't think we can safely say that the NIV is "not an okay translation," much less that it's "garbage." (And the truth is, I rarely even use the NIV. But I know that it was translated by a commitee of sincere believers who were genuinely trying to produce a high quality, accessible, and readable version of God's word in the modern English language for predominantly North American Christians. I'm not going to sit back and let it be called garbage.)

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Anyone with even a particle of understanding knows that a word-for-word translation is basically unreadable in the new language.

You are confusing literal translation with word-for-word translation. They are two different methodologies.

The KJV, the NLJV, and the NASB cannot all be word-for-word translations, because they are all different.

Word-for-word translation is a methodology where each foreign word is replaced with an equivalent english word, and the word order is rearranged to be read correctly in English. KJV, NKJV, and NASB are all translated using the word-for-word methodology.

manuscripts that display evidence of willful changes inserted into the text. I for one, cannot undersyand how it can be considered logical to give any credence whatsoever to any manuscript that contains even one case of an apparently willfully inserted change in the text.

How sure are you that the Nestle text is perfectly preserved with no altercations?

 

[heritage36]

Yeah, dcyates, smells like a KJV-only guy to me!

 

[camperdown9]

Hi

The NIV and the TNIV are both great bible translations and there is nothing wrong with them. For the main part they are easier to read than many other translations.

However my suggestion is that you use more than one translation. The NASB, ESV, KJV, NLT all have there uses. I think that the more translations you use the more you lean about a passage. Its funny in that one translation can highlight a point that you might just ignore in another.

(People tend to be afraid of the KJV, its not that scary and you will find the language easer to understand than you think, but again use it with a modern translation. My guess is that in 40 years time the NASB. NIV, ESV etc will out be out of print and replaced by new translations but the KJV will still be around)

The TNIV and the current NIV translations are both going out of print this year and being replaced by a new NIV. The new NIV version is available now in ebook and app form, printed versions to follow in March.

Alex

 

[dcyates]

Hi

The NIV and the TNIV are both great bible translations and there is nothing wrong with them. For the main part they are easier to read than many other translations.

However my suggestion is that you use more than one translation. The NASB, ESV, KJV, NLT all have there uses. I think that the more translations you use the more you lean about a passage. Its funny in that one translation can highlight a point that you might just ignore in another.

(People tend to be afraid of the KJV, its not that scary and you will find the language easer to understand than you think, but again use it with a modern translation. My guess is that in 40 years time the NASB. NIV, ESV etc will out be out of print and replaced by new translations but the KJV will still be around)

The TNIV and the current NIV translations are both going out of print this year and being replaced by a new NIV. The new NIV version is available now in ebook and app form, printed versions to follow in March.

Alex

So, they're not really going 'out of print' but are instead being re-released in a revised edition. Correct?

 

[camperdown9]

So, they're not really going 'out of print' but are instead being re-released in a revised edition. Correct?

The current versions of the NIV are not going to be reprinted. From March onwards all newly printed NIV bibles will use the new 2010 text. (which is 95% the same as the current text). So I guess you could say that its a chance for zondervan, Hodder & Stoughton etc to re package/launch their NIV bible ranges using the new text as a reason.

The TNIV however is going out of print, totally. No reissue or new text version.

Alex

 

[Singermom]

Not to sound like a total idiot...but what IS TNIV? What is the difference between it and regular ol' NIV?