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

[camperdown9]

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

The TNIV (Today's New International Version) was published (in full) in 2005. Its been available along side the NIV ever since.

If you google TNIV you will get a better idea of the difference between it and the NIV than I can give you. However the TNIV is more gender inclusive than the NIV and some text has been changed to make it more readable.

Matthew 1:18, where the NIV says that Mary was “with child”, the TNIV simply says Mary was “pregnant”.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created human beings in his own image." (rather than man in the NIV)

Alex

 

[Jackmason]

As with any Bible translated from the Westcott-Hort text, both these are counterfeits. They are missing nearly 65,000 words from the New Testament, ignore the deity of Christ, and misrepresent the nature of God and Christ. The NIV is unique in that it has two different people killing Goliath, so it is up to you to figure out whether David actually did it or not.

Any so-called "Bible" that has "wash their robes" for Rev. 22.:14 is one of the counterfeits and is unworthy of being called "the Word of God". God only wrote one Bible, and we were not without His Word until 1891 when Westcott and Hort decided what God really wanted to say.

 

[Tim Myers]

I am partial to the Amplified Version of the Bible, myself......

 

[Biblicist]

My preference is toward the NIV at least for Bible study, though it does lean more toward a dynamic equivalence approach to translation. Its major advantage over most if not all the other translations is with the lexical aids that support this version; this in my opinion makes it the best translation for serious study.

Zondervan who are the publishers of the NIV have thankfully replaced the old and rather dated Strong’s numbering system with the GK (Goodrick/Kohlenberger) system which is certainly far superior to that of Strong’s – and accurate as well.

The NASB is certainly a better translation than the NIV but unfortunately it does not have the same lexical support of the NIV but I use this translation for general reading; I use an edition of the NASB that does not have any notes so that I won’t be distracted. The NASB user does have an advantage over the NIV if they are using BibleWorks software for study as BibleWorks does not provide any lexical information for the NIV which I assume is due to copyright issues; Logos is probably the same but I have no experience with this program.

There has been some discussion about word-for-word and formal equivelance translation principles; it should be pointed out that there has never been a single book every published from a donor to a receptor language that has been done this way, it is simply impossible. In fact it would be difficult to justify the claims by any publisher who states that their translation has even faithfully followed the principle of formal equivelance, though they me be able to rightfully state that they have tried to follow this principle when they could.

When it comes to the copyright of Bible translations, to my knowledge there is not any translation that is not covered by a copyright which includes the KJV which is owned by the British Government or Crown. When it comes to the character and spiritual state of the owners and translators of any transtlation this will become a minefield - just look at King James himself.

Barry