For Fans of the KJV

[bookslover]

Now, as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful monument ever erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an incomparably rich inheritance, free to all who can read. This means that we ought invariably, in the church and on public occasions, to use the Authorized Version. All others are inferior. And, except for special purposes, it should be used exclusively in private reading. Why make constant companions of the second-best, when the best is available?

The so-called Revised Version and modern condensed versions are valuable for their superior accuracy in individual instances. They may be used as checks and comments. But, for steady reading and in all public places where the Bible is read aloud, let us have the noble, marbly English of 1611. - William Lyon Phelps (1865-1943)

William Lyon Phelps taught English at Yale University (1892-1933) and was Lampson Professor of English Literature (1901-1933). The quotation is from his book, Human Nature in the Bible (1922), p. xi.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I am a huge fan of the Authorized Version but I don't know if I would go so far as to call all others inferior. I mean if thou understandest what thou readest in the AV then continuest therein. If ye understandest not there art divers translations that art fair indeed and they shall sufficeth thee in thy study. lol sorry I had a little fun there.

 

[JimmyH]

For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior.

Certainly some of the translations since 1922, the 1984 NIV, the NASB and ESV are more accurate, and more accessible to modern readers unfamiliar with the archaisms of the AV.

In the end we will read the Bible translation we are most comfortable with and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our understanding.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Jimmy, I would like to commend you. Though I have only been a member of the PB a few days you always seem to be a voice of reason and grace. And I agree that the AV is one of a kind and In my humble opinion every Christian should own a copy of it and make it a resource in their studies. That being said not everyone can understand it well enough to use it exclusively and they shouldn't be forced to do so. The 1901 ASV is a great translation to use for comparison I think it is arguably still the most literal English translation available. I've thinking of buying a copy of it from Star Bibles since it's rarely in print but I'm kinda weary of what the quality of their reprint may be. It is the teacher's edition but they want $100 for it. I must say to that the ESV has some very nice literary qualities. I think the ESV can be considered to be in the Tyndale/KJV line of bibles. Actually sometimes it sound more King Jamesish then the NKJV does, for instance "Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
Luk 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."

 

[yeutter]

the NIV more accurate?!

For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior.

Certainly some of the translations since 1922, the 1984 NIV, the NASB and ESV are more accurate, and more accessible to modern readers unfamiliar with the archaisms of the AV.

In the end we will read the Bible translation we are most comfortable with and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our understanding.

The NASB, the ESV and the old ASV are good literal translations of the text that they use. The NIV, the NASB, and the ESV are accessible to modern readers.
I am mystified as to why you believe the NIV is more accurate. Even if we concede the textual debate, the NIV translation is not more accurate.

 

[JimmyH]

For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior.

Certainly some of the translations since 1922, the 1984 NIV, the NASB and ESV are more accurate, and more accessible to modern readers unfamiliar with the archaisms of the AV.

In the end we will read the Bible translation we are most comfortable with and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our understanding.

The NASB, the ESV and the old ASV are good literal translations of the text that they use. The NIV, the NASB, and the ESV are accessible to modern readers.
I am mystified as to why you believe the NIV is more accurate. Even if we concede the textual debate, the NIV translation is not more accurate.

I have this impression from a great deal of reading on the subject. If it is not more accurate, it is certainly more accessible. At least to USA readers. In doing M'Cheyne's one year Bible reading plan daily for the past 5 months I read the AV first, than the 1984 NIV for comparison. So far I see nothing of any consequence omitted, and in many cases find the thought easier to understand completely in the NIV.

As I've noted in other threads, D.A. Carson, in his 'King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism,' says the NIV is the "best English translation", and John MacArthur, in his 'How To Study The BIble' series says though his primary English translation is the KJV, he sometimes refers to the NASB, or the NIV for clarification, because they are the best English translations.

In my younger days my mind was poisoned towards the NIV by all of the nay sayers who cried dynamic equivalence. It was only after reading the aforementioned D.A. Carson quote 20 years later that I dusted off my 1984 NIV study Bible and began reading it again. I also read NIV editor/translator Kenneth Barker's The Balance Of The NIV, and 'The Accuracy Of The NIV.

The latter being Dr. Barker's answer to critics of the translation such as Rev. Robert Martin (Accuracy of Translation) which I also read. I've read Leland Ryken, James White, D.A. Waite among others. I've taken this question of translations very seriously and I'm personally satisfied that the CT is reliable, and so are the mainstream translations.

Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.' Where portions were missing from the Greek he translated the Vulgate. Modern translators have over 500 NT manuscripts, the advantage of discoveries of the papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the advances in philology that have occurred in the past 400 years. For a better idea of the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the AV, read The King James Bible, by David Norton, editor of 'The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible', on the nuts and bolts of the AV since its beginnings.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation Jimmy you may want to take a look at this review of the NIV. It's pretty fair.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.'

This is patently false. While it may be true that Erasmus relied most heavily on the five manuscripts that he considered the best, he also consulted many other available manuscripts. To say that Erasmus thus based the TR on just five Greek manuscripts would be akin to saying that the CT is based on just two Greek manuscripts since it relies so heavily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The real issue here has more to do with translation philosophy. The NIV is not intended to be a literal translation, but rather a "dynamic equivalence" whereby the translators seek to discover the meaning of the original and reword it in common English that is easy to understand. That is a noble enough aim, however the problem arises when the translators seek to "discover" the original intent. This requires interpretation, and interpretation often results in error. As far as Carson is concerned, his endorsement is not particularly surprising considering he served as general editor of Zondervan's NIV Study Bible.

 

[bookslover]

Here's some more Phelps:

The absolute persistence of sin on the earth is the cardinal fact in human history; all the ocean and all the rain could not wash wickedness off the land. Although Noah knew that the inhabitants had been slain because of their evil-doing, and although he and his family had been miraculously spared, and although he had built an altar and worshipped as soon as he touched the ground, almost his next recorded act was to get drunk. It was like going to church in the morning and getting drunk in the afternoon - still a familiar sight in certain parts of the world. Perhaps, after so much water, wine seemed attractive.

Ham had the misfortune to see his father dead drunk; and Noah, when he awaked, instead of being penitent for his disgrace, cursed his son for seeing him. Noah is not the only person in history who felt worse about being caught than about doing wrong. I was never favorably impressed by Noah's cursing his own son; of course, he was in a bad temper when he woke up and probably had a desperate headache; but if he had said, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner!" I should have had more respect for him than when he added to the sin of drunkenness the sin of cursing his own child, just like a drunken paterfamilias! - Human Nature in the Bible, pp. 17-18. (emphasis mine)

That hadn't occurred to me before. Did Noah lash out at his son as a way to shift attention away from his own sin?

 

[JimmyH]

The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation Jimmy you may want to take a look at this review of the NIV. It's pretty fair.

Thanks Edward, I've read that in the past. In Dr. Kenneth Barker's 'The Accuracy of the NIV', he answers many of the criticisms with specifics on the translation committee's reasoning in the translation choices they made. I haven't returned to Marlow's article to compare, but I will.

Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.'

This is patently false. While it may be true that Erasmus relied most heavily on the five manuscripts that he considered the best, he also consulted many other available manuscripts.

Erasmus, I've read, was the premier translator of Greek in his time. No doubt while in England, where he began entertaining the idea of compiling a Greek NT text he had many more manuscripts to examine, but he went to Switzerland to actually begin his work and James White ( The King James Only Controversy) says ;

Erasmus's interest in the biblical text, seen in his publishing of Valla's work, prompted him to begin work on publishing the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Up to that time no one had printed it in its entirety, and everyone was still utilizing hand-copied manuscripts. Erasmus labored in England on the project until the summer of 1514, when he moved back onto the continent to Basel, Switzerland, hoping to find many excellent Greek manuscripts. He was disappointed when he found only five, but he set to work with these.

Erasmus obtained the assistance of John Froben, a printer at Basel who encouraged him to hurry with his work, possibly because he had heard that Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros had already printed his Complutensian Ployglot, which included the Greek New Testament, and was merely waiting for approval to arrive from Rome before publishing his work. Time was running out to be the first to actually publish the Greek New Testament. As a result, the first edition of Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum (The New Testament) was hardly a thing of beauty, and as soon as it was printed Erasmus got to work editing the second edition. In fact the first edition was so hastily edited and that it was "hurried out headlong." Since he was unwilling to wait for papal approval, he took a big risk and dedicated his work to Pope Leo X, the same man who excommunicated Martin Luther, hoping that the dedication would deflect any reprisals for rushing his work to press. The gamble worked and Erasmus had the first published Greek text on the market.

The NIV is not intended to be a literal translation, but rather a "dynamic equivalence" whereby the translators seek to discover the meaning of the original and reword it in common English that is easy to understand. That is a noble enough aim, however the problem arises when the translators seek to "discover" the original intent. This requires interpretation, and interpretation often results in error. As far as Carson is concerned, his endorsement is not particularly surprising considering he served as general editor of Zondervan's NIV Study Bible.

God forbid ! Forgive the tongue in cheek response, but there is no shortage of dynamic equivalence in the AV. Referring again to Dr Barker's 'The Accuracy of the NIV', I am satisfied with his details of how and why the committee translated as they did. Speaking of the 1984 edition. I have no sympathy for later gender neutral revisions. I'm sure it is not perfect, but no translation is.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

 

[JimmyH]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

 

[Logan]

This is patently false. While it may be true that Erasmus relied most heavily on the five manuscripts that he considered the best, he also consulted many other available manuscripts.

Is it? I'm curious where you've gotten than information (I've looked for something like that). I've seen many sources (including Scrivener I thought, but I can't find it at the moment) that actually list the manuscripts used (at most it appears to be six). On the other hand, I've seen people interested in disputing it claim that Erasmus made extensive notes that amounted to many more manuscripts, or had access to many more, etc. but I haven't seen evidence for it. Either way, he did a great job with what he had.

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism.

Out of curiousity, who would you consider an expert? Agree with him or not, he knows more about it than anyone living I can think of off the top of my head. Even though I think he tends toward the hard-nose, extreme side sometimes, I wouldn't disparage his scholarship.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

I must admit Jimmy this is a pretty good defense of the NIV. My mom reads the NIV and loves it. Quite a few times when I have studied with her I liked some of the NIV translation choices. Hmm. I have an NIV study bible that I haven't used much maybe I'll take a second look at it. Maybe combine with my matthew henry KJVsb. Good stuff Jimmy that opened my mind a little, thanks.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

I would encourage you to continue using the translation you are most comfortable with. I have no particular quarrel with them NIV , I just find it questionable to bestow the title of "most accurate" upon a translation that does not even seek to translate every word into English. I am also not sure where you are getting your quote from MacArthur because I have heard him say on many occasions that he did not care for the NIV. Regardless, blessings to you brother on your continued studies.

 

[JimmyH]

I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries.

I would encourage you to continue using the translation you are most comfortable with. I have no particular quarrel with them NIV , I just find it questionable to bestow the title of "most accurate" upon a translation that does not even seek to translate every word into English. I am also not sure where you are getting your quote from MacArthur because I have heard him say on many occasions that he did not care for the NIV. Regardless, blessings to you brother on your continued studies.

On Grace To You Ministry website, Dr MacArthur's series 'How To Study The Bible', the fourth and last mp3 in the series at the bottom of the page. Towards the very end of that recording he makes the statement that the 'NASB and NIV' are the "best English translations."

 

[Bill The Baptist]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyMyRIIBdA

Notice Macarthur's comment around the 54 second mark.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyMyRIIBdA

Notice Macarthur's comment around the 54 second mark.

Yeah He doesn't seem to be thrilled about the NIV but I respect why he would do an NIV study bible.

 

[MW]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.

 

[MW]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.

As this continued to be the language of subsequent translations, we can add Georgian, Victorian, and at least Edwardian.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.

As this continued to be the language of subsequent translations, we can add Georgian, Victorian, and at least Edwardian.

I like Edwardian lol

 

[bookslover]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.

"Grammer"? What does your grandmother have to do with any of this? LOL

 

[God'sElectSaint]

there art

The word should be "are," just as it remains.

lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.

"Grammer"? What does your grandmother have to do with any of this? LOL

Lol

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Out of curiousity, who would you consider an expert? Agree with him or not, he knows more about it than anyone living I can think of off the top of my head. Even though I think he tends toward the hard-nose, extreme side sometimes, I wouldn't disparage his scholarship.

From the CT side of things, I would consider people like Metzger or Mounce to be experts. As a general rule, in order to be considered an "expert", one would need to possess a Ph.D in a related discipline and engage in textual criticism as their primary endeavor.

 

[Pilgrim]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

See Robert P. Martin's Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version for an opposing view regarding the NIV translation philosophy.

 

[Physeter]

The Authorized Version is my favorite for its beauty. It reads better for me than the other translations.

 

[JimmyH]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

See Robert P. Martin's Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version for an opposing view regarding the NIV translation philosophy.

As previously mentioned, I've read it. Dr Barker defends against it, and others, in his 'The Accuracy of the NIV, and 'The Balance of the NIV.' In my humble opinion.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

See Robert P. Martin's Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version for an opposing view regarding the NIV translation philosophy.

As previously mentioned, I've read it. Dr Barker defends against it, and others, in his 'The Accuracy of the NIV, and 'The Balance of the NIV.' In my humble opinion.

Dr.Barker does do a decent job of defending the NIV but in terms of accuracy the NIV is wanting in manner areas Jimmy. It's a good bible for beginners and in terms of readability it's very nice. Nevertheless, for serious study of the bible it is not transparent enough to the original languages to be a good candidate for that type of use In my humble opinion. I think HCSB is a much better quality of dynamic equivalent than the NIV. I think the NIV is useful for some things but unless they tighten up it's accuracy I don't see it being embraced by many serious Pastors or bible students. I respect your open mindedness but compared to the KJV it doesn't come close to in terms of accuracy.

 

[JimmyH]

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.

Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf

See Robert P. Martin's Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version for an opposing view regarding the NIV translation philosophy.

As previously mentioned, I've read it. Dr Barker defends against it, and others, in his 'The Accuracy of the NIV, and 'The Balance of the NIV.' In my humble opinion.

Dr.Barker does do a decent job of defending the NIV but in terms of accuracy the NIV is wanting in manner areas Jimmy. It's a good bible for beginners and in terms of readability it's very nice. Nevertheless, for serious study of the bible it is not transparent enough to the original languages to be a good candidate for that type of use In my humble opinion. I think HCSB is a much better quality of dynamic equivalent than the NIV. I think the NIV is useful for some things but unless they tighten up it's accuracy I don't see it being embraced by many serious Pastors or bible students. I respect your open mindedness but compared to the KJV it doesn't come close to in terms of accuracy.

Well, as I noted in a previous post, I'm not qualified to make that judgment. Those of us who rely on translator's efforts go with the general consensus of which translations are the most accurate, and with which we find the most readable/understandable for ourselves.

We read forums, listen to others, who praise or dismiss this or that translation, and we are influenced by them. I put my NIV (1984) on the shelf for 20 years due to the opinions of a few and was quite surprised to see Carson and MacArthur characterize the NIV as "the best English translation." (MacArthur said NASB and NIV).

So I can listen to you, to others on the Internet, and elsewhere who have their opinion, or I can delve into the 1984 NIV day after day, verse after verse, and compare it to the AV in terms of content. I've been doing this daily for the past 5 months, and I did it quite a bit, if randomly, the past couple of years.

The 1984 NIV passes muster for me, though I cannot comment of later revisions, since I haven't read any of them.

This has been an interesting thread and I will continue to monitor it, but I think I've said all I can say, and will probably just remain an observer rather than a participant henceforth.