www.theNIVBible... Members of the Committee on Bible Translation explain how accuracy is directly tied to meaning in translation work and offer insights and examples from the NIV.
After years of struggling with finding and understanding the KJV and ESV, I'm coming back to the NIV (which I was introduced to when it first came out). I enjoyed reading the Bible then. It's been too much work for years. I was taught to mistrust the NIV but have since researched it for myself and realized that I don't have to. 😁
The NIV is my favourite Bible translation. It has that perfect balance between word for word and thought for thought, plus it's in English that everyone can understand.
I hope someone on the committee is up to date on translation theory, particularly relevance theory and functional translation models. Both of these help eliminate the problematic dynamic vs formal equivalence dichotomy. These things have been around and well known since the 80’s.
I appreciate these explanations regarding the overriding aspects behind the NIV translation. Modern English is constantly changing, and it helps when translators recognize that.
There are pros and cons to Old English. It is odd to see many modern English Bible remove the word SHALL. Plus they rarely tell you if the pronoun "you" is singular or plural. ( I am not saying this to promote the KJV or 1901 ASV. I am just stating a fact.)
BOTH Dynamic Equivalence AND Word-for-Word can be dangerous. Some of the verses that are dangerous if keep in a "literal" reading are: -Matt. 16:18, -Mark 4:36, -Mark 7:28 ( cookie-cutter translating), -Luke 2:5, -John 5:10, -Acts 16:38, -Gal. 3:1, -Gal. 3:26-28, -2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 3:2, -3 John 1, -Rev. 10:1, -Rev. 20:2, and others. Some of the verses that are dangerous if made into "Dynamic Equivalence" forms are: -Matt. 4:5, -Matt. 8:9, -Matt. 20:20, -Mark 7:19, -Luke 2:5, -Luke 16:24, -John 3:7, John 3:16, -John 4:26, -John 11:35, -Gal. 2:21, -2 Tim. 3:16, -2 Peter 2:4, -1 John 2:2, -Rev. 2:13, -Rev. 6:8, and others. Pause at 2:22. Let's see what can be said about John 3:7. "must" (KJV) v.s. "it behoves" (YLT) are NOT the same thing. Which term is best? What is the PICTURE of what the Greek word is? I can see that the NIV is not Satanic, as the KJV Onlyists say it is. Yet it DOES have many problems with it....... to where it often gets the fewest points when I compare English translations.
I find the NIV to be a translation that permits commentary within the context of the text. A word for word is the foundation but the NIV does a good job of explaining the scriptures to being understandable.
no translation perfect.. i like NIV (critical text) and NKJV (textus receptus).. I was saved using NIV and bec it is very famous translation, praise God i believe many are saved! bec it is easy to be understood by u believer.. reading KJV is hard to understand...
I guess it comes down to whether you believe God inspired the very words of the bible or if holy men wrote down the sense of what He said. Whether also the scribes were concerned about copying it word for word or dynamically. Whether God's word was preserved and revered by the church in thousands of manuscripts or dynamically passed down in less then 50 of the Alexandrian texts. It doesn't matter how good your translation is, if your not translating the correct manuscripts! The first example we have of dynamic equivalence is back in the garden when the serpent asked "hath God said?"
NIV is not word for word so it's not God's word. Dynamic equivalency example in Genesis Satan translating Word of God to Eve. We know the result & its effect upon mankind. Use KJV with dictionary for that time which is easily available for few of the words that is difficult. May the Lord enlighten our minds & heart.
Based on that logic you should learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in the original language. THAT IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD. GOD chose to speak in three languages Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So I recommend that you spend some money and learn those three languages well enough so you can read them.
Problems with new versions not just dynamic equivalency issue, the underlying text used is corrupted Vatican's text not preserved majority Antioch text. We don't need corrupt bibles in our hands in the name of easy reading.
@@josephj9589 Who said that the underlying texts are corrupted? They're both earlier documents therefore they are closer to when the apostles actually wrote their letters.
How did hebrews 9:10 "diorthoseos" turn into "new order"? If you put your own meaning over God's word, it is no longer His word, or a proper translation. Stick to God's word therefore, lest you be proved to be a liar. It's okay to admit that you don't understand all of God's word -- no human does, but stick to His word -- people depend on it.
If your bible does not even know who killed Goliath can it really be the word of God? If it says Jesus was the one and only Son which is not true as the same bible says Adam is the son of God.. and we are the sons and daughters of God.. no it should be Jesus is the only Begotten son of God.. if your bible says its a sin to be angry at your brother and we know Jesus was often angry at his brothers.. then he is a sinner.. no it should read angry for no reason.. and on and on.. they took so many verses out..but then they do not believe its the Word of God so they treat it like you can chaniv nge it up ..put things in..take things out.. apparently they did not read the real Bible to the last page..and anyone who is reading the NIV maybe should go read the last page as well.. taking out the Lords name hundreds of times in something only those who do not believe Gods word would do.. and they took out whole verses...they even took out Gods name..you will not see it in the NIV..and here is something interesting..THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of them! The only difference between the NIV and the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any footnotes!
Totally right you are, David McIntosh!!! They have it TOTALLY BACKWARDS in this video!!! Only word for word will keep the original meanings. Dynamic Equivalence is just another name for thought for thought--especially the translator allowed to translate what he or she THINKS is best! Yeah, that's what it means! Compare the Traditional text (KJB) to the 'Critical' text (Westcott & Hort Greek text; modern translations; Benedict, Simonides & the lying Tischendorf involvement with the fraudulent Codex Sinaiticus; the very questionable Codex Vaticanus; the RCC in bed with our Bible Societies ever since their start!, ETC.!) Compare the NIV to the KJB in the following places: Micah 5:2; Daniel 3:25; Matthew 1:25; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33 & 43; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 3:13; Revelation 1:6; Act 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:47; Luke 3:14; Acts 8:37; 1 John 5:7-8; Colossians 1:14; Isaiah 14:12>>NIV says the morning star is Lucifer! (compare with Revelation 22:16). These are just a very few of the corrupt changes the NIV & modern translations make, in part due to their 'Dynamic Equivalence!!! The bottom line: these modern translations don't change every verse, BUT they have already changed so very many, many verses. They make Joseph Jesus' father!; they say Jesus had an origin in the past!; ETC.! It is UNBELIEVABLE what they have done with these modern translations!!! And no matter what they say, supporting these deliberate evil corruptions in these modern translations make these 'scholars' ENEMIES OF THE CROSS!!! I know the KJB isn't perfect either, but only these modern translations keep taking away from Jesus' Deity, ETC. The KJB has remained the same for over 400 years! That is a total difference! God bless you, & I hope you help spread the word about all this.
Studying the history of Eugene Nida will be very important & enlightening! Eugene Nida is the father of Dynamic Equivalence & over 200 Bible translations. He did SO MUCH AGAINST the true Word of God! Also, it helps to make a list of the 'scholars' that are supportive of the 'Critical' text/modern translations. A few of these are: -Drs. Bill Mounce; Bruce Waltke; D. A. Carson; Daniel Wallace; Matt Slick; James White; John MacArthur--who doesn't believe the blood of Jesus is efficacious!! Hope all of this helps.
The NIV has hopefully improved on overly interpreted passages that were wrong. But they still are translating the Greek from an ahistoric academic recent creation. That is simply unacceptable.
The Greek is from the oldest manuscripts available. Not like the Erasmus text, with its texts from the 12th century. Anyway, the differences are not that significant.
@@chris-nj3vg That would be something if they chose a ms and stuck with it but they pick and choose random readings from random mss and end up producing a frankenstien monster of a protean nature that does not and never has looked like any historical text the church actually used. They have created a novelty that no one ever saw before that and then they are constantly changing it! That is not accuracy, that is rather indecision and uncertainty. They are wandering aimlessly in a textual limbo with no hope of coming home.
@@chris-nj3vg We have scripture from 100 AD that agrees with Erasmus, we have thousands of church father writings before your "Oldest and Best" that agree with the Majority Text, but explaining what God said won't change anything, you don't even believe His Words.
