Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why I do not use the NIV 2011

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I do not use the NIV 2011

    They retained many of the TNIV changes to the 1984 NIV. Although there are some improvements. There appears to be a sort of censorship or alteration in order to fit in with the sensibilities of the spirit of this age. Since the translation has at many places been unfaithful to the original texts which it translated from. I cannot in Good conscience endorse this version:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf

    What do you guys think?
    Last edited by johngalt1; 11-12-2014, 07:26 PM.

  • #2
    A person's commentary:

    http://sbcvoices.com/yesterday%E2%80...0%99s-culture/

    Comment


    • #3
      Given that I've never particularly cared for the NIV, I'm even less likely to use the new version.

      I prefer the NKJV, but I do not use it exclusively. I supplement most often with the NRSV; though I do not care for its gender-inclusive language, it is generally a good translation. These two translations also tend to footnote textual variations, which I very much appreciate (my preference is the Majority Text for the NT).
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't know why anyone would use a version that is just gonna get changed in 25 years.

        Comment


        • #5
          The thing about gender-neutral translation is that it makes substantial differences in the meaning of the text. That is, it misrepresents the counsel of God and by conforming the translation to our modern sensibilities and hence render his servants with inability to see with clarity sin and holiness as it is. This greatly angers me.

          God does not change yet they dare try to corrupt the counsel of God.

          Comment


          • #6
            Isn't it almost 2015?

            On a slightly different note, I personally use the NAS, and I enjoy the ESV. I also think the NET has done a wonderful job when it comes to textual notes and the translation is very readable.

            I used the NIV study bible for years when I first became a Christian and the Lord used it to illuminate my mind to adhere to sound doctrine. I wouldn't go to war on this topic that's for sure - my two cents.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johngalt1 View Post
              What do you guys think?
              I think we should all make a sustained effort to learn Greek.

              Comment


              • #8
                Novus Vulgata is very interesting to learn, though it has a few peccadilos of soundings when it comes to using it for song (more accurate in sounding vs less slightly less singable), a lot of the great antiphonies in the Catholic Church were written for the Vulgata.

                Or the danish translation, which was done in collaboration between jewish and Christian translators. It has a very ESV approach to translation, but it also respects that the Psalms ought to be singable.

                When I'm talking online I prefer the ESV.

                In private study I have both an NIV study bible with a very good (but protestant) commentary, and I have an RVSCE (Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition) translation of the New Testament with a commentary (obviously Catholic).
                Last edited by Leonhard; 11-13-2014, 01:25 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by johngalt1 View Post
                  The thing about gender-neutral translation is that it makes substantial differences in the meaning of the text. That is, it misrepresents the counsel of God and by conforming the translation to our modern sensibilities and hence render his servants with inability to see with clarity sin and holiness as it is. This greatly angers me.

                  God does not change yet they dare try to corrupt the counsel of God.
                  It seems that you do not understand the point behind 'gender-neutral' translation.

                  See, the point is not to 'conform the translation to modern sensibilities' but rather to render a translation that will as accurately as possible convey the meaning of the original text into the receptor language.

                  See, language changes over time -- so it's not about 'God changing' or 'corrupting the counsel of God' -- but rather expressing unchanging truths and the counsel of God in a changing language.


                  In other words, it's not about 'changing the word of God' but rather about 'communicating the word of God'.

                  I have found that most people who are 'angered' by the 'gender neutral' debate actually know very little about Koine Greek, translation, or translation theory.
                  Last edited by phat8594; 11-14-2014, 04:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree with phat here. I actually personally prefer the more "traditional" translations of gender, mainly because it's what I grew up reading, but I don't see it as a hill to die on and if it removes some unnecessary offense to the gospel among a cautious speaker here or there, all the better.

                    I'm hoping to start learning some Greek very soon next semester. I can't wait to read the Bible in its original language.

                    (Incidentally, I do have some issues with the NIV, but practically speaking, I agree with Craig Blomberg that any translation that wasn't intended to promote a cult or sect (i.e. the Jehovah's Witnesses translation) is going to be accurate enough to give the reader the general point.)
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The NIV has always been as much a commentary as to being a translation. It is not a word for word translation, but is suppose to be a thought for thought translation. The translators interpreting the believed thought behind the original words and rephrasing it as deemed needed. That is the understood intent. Not that I agree with it. The 1984 NIV is over all more accurate, I think, than the 2011. It would be good to cite some case by case examples. Before and after. (I have at least one in mind).
                      Last edited by 37818; 11-15-2014, 03:02 PM.
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        The NIV has always been as much a commentary as to being a translation. It is not a word for word translation, but is suppose to be a thought for thought translation. The translators interpreting the believed thought behind the original words and rephrasing it as deemed needed. That is the understood intent. Not that I agree with it. The 1984 NIV is over all more accurate, I think, than the 2011. It would be good to cite some case by case examples. Before and after. (I have at least one in mind).

                        Again, I think there is a misunderstanding with how translation works. Although the different theories are often talked about as 'word for word' or ' thought for thought', both of these phrases are misleading, IMO. (no understandable translation could ever be 'word for word', and no good 'though for thought' translation would just interpret an 'idea' or 'thought' behind the text without looking at what the text is actually communicating through construct and particular words)

                        Personally I prefer the terms 'functional equivalence' and 'formal equivalence'. The functional equivalent approach typically puts more emphasis on conveying the MEANING of the sentence as a whole. Formal equivalence puts more emphasis on particular words and order. Of course, in reality, every translation is on a sliding scale between functional and formal, as a purely formal translation would be pretty much impossible to understand.

                        People often make a big deal about 'word for word' being more 'literal', but I fail to see how that is the case. In fact, often times a true 'word for word' translation would, IMO, often times be less 'literal' in the sense that it actually conveys a meaning in the receptor language that is not intended in the source language. This is because languages are different in so many ways, including things like semantic range of words, grammar, idioms, construct, etc. -- and that is why translation in the every day life of the real world is always done through a functional approach.

                        Here is a good short video that briefly discusses the subject of translation:

                        Last edited by phat8594; 11-17-2014, 01:32 PM.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Ana Dragule, 11-13-2020, 01:47 AM
                        2 responses
                        33 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post seanD
                        by seanD
                         
                        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 11-11-2020, 03:18 PM
                        5 responses
                        52 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post Christian3  
                        Started by mossrose, 11-08-2020, 03:50 PM
                        1 response
                        29 views
                        5 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by Faber, 11-06-2020, 11:51 AM
                        1 response
                        5 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Faber
                        by Faber
                         
                        Started by mossrose, 11-01-2020, 04:09 PM
                        4 responses
                        77 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post mossrose  
                        Working...
                        X