# NIV - What Happened?



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

*This is not meant for those KJVO's!*

It seems to me that a lot of long time NIV users have turned against the NIV for other modern translations. What is going on?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 2, 2007)

I don't know if 'turned against' is the right word and the ones leaving the NIV for other translations (most specifically the ESV) are generally in the 'Reformed' camp.

The reason for the 'defections' is because people are finally starting to see that a translation that is more of a formal equivalent ('essentially literal' to borrow ESV publishers term), is more faithful than a dynamic 'equivalent translation' like the NIV (thought for thought) which tends to do much more interpretation of the text by the translators. 

The NIV has had its popularity due to its easy readability. The ESV is arguably as easy to read as the NIV yet is a formal equivalent translation and therefore more faithful to the original.



kbergsing said:


> *This is not meant for those KJVO's!*
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of long time NIV users have turned against the NIV for other modern translations. What is going on?


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 2, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> It seems to me that a lot of long time NIV users have turned against the NIV for other modern translations.


----------



## Gryphonette (Oct 2, 2007)

*I prefer a more accurate translation.*



kbergsing said:


> *This is not meant for those KJVO's!*
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of long time NIV users have turned against the NIV for other modern translations. What is going on?



Christ Chapel uses the NIV, and after getting an NASB upon a Bible study teacher's recommendation (he liked that it uses the word "propitiation") it's been fascinating how frequently Dr. Kitchens will say that [whatever word] is better translated as [another word] and almost invariably my NASB _has_ that better translated word.

Not much point having a Bible translation that needs to be translated itself, y'know?


----------



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I don't know if 'turned against' is the right word and the ones leaving the NIV for other translations (most specifically the ESV) are generally in the 'Reformed' camp.
> 
> The reason for the 'defections' is because people are finally starting to see that a translation that is more of a formal equivalent ('essentially literal' to borrow ESV publishers term), is more faithful than a dynamic 'equivalent translation' like the NIV (thought for thought) which tends to do much more interpretation of the text by the translators.
> 
> The NIV has had its popularity due to its easy readability. The ESV is arguably as easy to read as the NIV yet is a formal equivalent translation and therefore more faithful to the original.


Yes, "turned against" wasn't the best choice of words. You interpreted exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 2, 2007)

prespastor said:


> The ESV is arguably as easy to read as the NIV yet is a formal equivalent translation and therefore more faithful to the original.



Well, I've found that the ESV is not an easy read for lots of people in the congregation. It's a difficult issue. For some people it's better to be able to read the Bible themselves, even at the expense of exactitude.

My philosophy is recommend that informed laypeople use the ESV, whilst those who struggle with reading to go for the NIV.


----------



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, I've found that the ESV is not an easy read for lots of people in the congregation. It's a difficult issue. For some people it's better to be able to read the Bible themselves, even at the expense of exactitude.
> 
> My philosophy is recommend that informed laypeople use the ESV, whilst those who struggle with reading to go for the NIV.


That's interesting. I've heard a few people say they struggle with reading the ESV, as well. In my humble opinion, the NIV is easy to read, all right, but a bit too "wordy".


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 2, 2007)

kbergsing said:


> *This is not meant for those KJVO's!*
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of long time NIV users have turned against the NIV for other modern translations. What is going on?




Personally, I have found the fanfare accompanying the ESV to be a bit on the hysterical side. While I think it is the best translation, I do think that the NIV is still a useful tool to have and that it is hard to beat the NKJV in many respects.

Here are some reasons why I prefer the ESV to NIV:

1. Inclusion of the word "propitiation" (though in fairness the NIV footnote does contain an accurate definition of propitiation).

2. Similarity between it and the NKJV and NASB, whereas the NIV seems to be too different.

3. The gender inclusive TNIV has perhaps made it expedient to use the ESV (or NKJV, NASB) in the church's worship.


----------



## JM (Oct 2, 2007)

Western consumerism. I won't deny that some have traded in the NIV for other translations that are formal equivalent, but I'm sure many more just want the 'new' or 'lastest' best selling Bible.


----------



## KMK (Oct 2, 2007)

JM said:


> Western consumerism. I won't deny that some have traded in the NIV for other translations that are formal equivalent, but I'm sure many more just want the 'new' or 'lastest' best selling Bible.





You can always count on American Christians shelling out the bucks for a new and improved version of God's Word.


----------



## kbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

JM said:


> Western consumerism. I won't deny that some have traded in the NIV for other translations that are formal equivalent, but I'm sure many more just want the 'new' or 'lastest' best selling Bible.


Although there are probably examples of this out there somewhere, do you think it is widespread?


----------



## jbergsing (Oct 2, 2007)

My "conversion" from the NIV to the ESV had nothing to do with the church we were attending (evangelical SBC using the NIV at the time) or the desire for the newest, greatest version of God's Word. I had been using the NIV for 11 years. It was a result of my desire to use a more literal version.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 2, 2007)

After using the NIV for a long time in preaching and teaching, I moved to the ESV and the HCSB because I wanted a more formally equivalent style of translation. Al Mohler, for instance, recommends only three Bibles (sorry KJVO folks) as worthy of serious study: NASB, ESV, and HCSB (June 10, 2002).

The few places where I checked the translations against the original (and against the other two), I find that the NASB is too wooden, the ESV is beautifully literary but still a little hard to read, and the HCSB is just about right. All three are "essentially" in the same camp as to translation theory. Regardless of whether you use the term "essentially" literal, "optimally" literal, or formal correspondence, they all represent a shared translation philosophy. This is especially true when you contrast them with the NIV or even more paraphrastic offerings.

My only significant beef with the HCSB is that it is not as popular as the ESV and will have a much more difficult time becoming a "standard" for anyone (other than those in the SBC which I'm not). The Reformed crowd has jumped on the ESV in recent years. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible and some of the overtly Reformed translators make it an attractive choice. And, unless you want to study from one Bible (NASB), preach from another (ESV), and use a third for your daily Bible reading, there does not seem to be much of a solution. (I did break down any order one of the Spirit of the Reformation study Bibles in order to get the notes and confessions, even though it is NIV). So, bottom line, give me an ESV or HCSB anytime over NIV. I also like to hear the word "propitiation" in my translation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 2, 2007)

> Al Mohler, for instance, recommends only three Bibles (sorry KJVO folks) as worthy of serious study: NASB, ESV, and HCSB (June 10, 2002).




Not even a NKJV


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 2, 2007)

As this thread indicates, there were basically two reasons.

1. The proximate cause was the gender neutral controversy that eventually led to the release of the TNIV. (Originally it was supposed to replace the NIV If I recall correctly). This was the reason for the ESV and HCSB coming out when they did. 

2. The realization among many who had initially embraced the NIV that a more literal version was needed. Whether right or wrong, many of them weren't satisfied with the NKJV because it is not based on the Critical Text and the NASB wasn't a candidate because many consider it to be too "woodenly literal" for general use. Many of those with these views seem to have embraced the ESV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 2, 2007)

Chris,

As Bill O'Reilly would say, "pithy."


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 3, 2007)

I agree. The NIV is not so terrible that if one is edified by it and struggles with other translations, they should struggle on instead of read the NIV. (though I sorta cringe to admit that)

Moving on...I honestly cant see that the ESV is that much more difficult than the ESV. I personally only think this is so for the person who is familiar with the NIV trying to move to the ESV. Any change from a familiar translation can be difficult.

I have a man in my congregation who uses the NIV and has for years. We have adopted the ESV as our formal translation. When he expressed concern I assured him that it is fine for him to continue using his NIV but just to be aware that all teaching and reading of the scriptures in the church would be from the ESV. When he needs to read during our responsive reading, he can grab a pew Bible and problem solved. I have another member who prefers the KJV; same story there. 






JohnOwen007 said:


> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> > The ESV is arguably as easy to read as the NIV yet is a formal equivalent translation and therefore more faithful to the original.
> ...


----------

