New Translations

[openairboy]

The New International (Per)version is coming out with their Today's New International (Per)version.

I think I know what most around here would believe, but how do we bridge cultural gaps with translations?

Thoughts?

openairboy

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The TNIV has been discussed previously in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7931

 

[matthew11v25]

TNIV........

 

[bond-servant]

I agree.

I wonder how popular it will become, and I wonder how many people will really abandon their NIV's and switch to a formal translation as a protest to Zondervan?

By the way, speaking of awful translations, there is one "paraphrase" (though I wouldn't even begin to complement it that way) called "The Word on the Street", by Rob Lacey. This is also published by Zondervan. It is one of the most disrespectful things I've set my eyes on. Unfortunately, it is being sold in many Christian bookstores in the *Bible* section. Have ya'll seen it?

http://www.zondervan.com/roblacey/
http://www.familychristian.com/shop/product.asp?ProdID=11142

 

[heartoflesh]

Okay, I want to understand this NIV thing. I know that it's not a literal translation, and I would never use it for inductive Bible study. I use the NKJV personally. There's a difference, however, between a not-so-good translation and a "perversion". The latter seems to imply malicious intent. I would be amazed and shocked if guys like Gordan Fee and D.A. Carson were openly embracing a perversion.

What consitutes a translation being a perversion? Does a fundamental tenant of Christian teaching have to be jeopardized, or is it a relative term which can be used if one just doesn't like it?

 

[Ivan]

I am slowly but surely getting my pastor away from the NIV. I read the Psalm every Sunday in our worship service, using the ESV. Recently he decided to purchase a ESV and a leather bound at that!

 

[matthew11v25]

Originally posted by Ivan
Recently he decided to purchase a ESV and a leather bound at that!

my ESV is the genuine leather...but the calfskin....:bigsmile:......now that is nice stuff.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
Okay, I want to understand this NIV thing. I know that it's not a literal translation, and I would never use it for inductive Bible study. I use the NKJV personally. There's a difference, however, between a not-so-good translation and a "perversion". The latter seems to imply malicious intent. I would be amazed and shocked if guys like Gordan Fee and D.A. Carson were openly embracing a perversion.

What consitutes a translation being a perversion? Does a fundamental tenant of Christian teaching have to be jeopardized, or is it a relative term which can be used if one just doesn't like it?

One, it is a bit of joke, because it fits (jokingly and literally). Two, a perversion simply means "to twist the meaning or sense of: mistranslation"; hence the literal fitting for the NIV. Yes, I think the NIV is a mistranslation at MANY points opposed to a few verses here and there, ESPECIALLY in their latest rendition, so it literally fits the definition of a perversion.

So, what constitutes a translation being a perversion? Simply a mistranslation. No, I don't believe it has to be malicious in intent to fit the definition.

Rick, who is that a picture of?

openairboy

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by openairboy

Originally posted by Rick Larson
Okay, I want to understand this NIV thing. I know that it's not a literal translation, and I would never use it for inductive Bible study. I use the NKJV personally. There's a difference, however, between a not-so-good translation and a "perversion". The latter seems to imply malicious intent. I would be amazed and shocked if guys like Gordan Fee and D.A. Carson were openly embracing a perversion.

What consitutes a translation being a perversion? Does a fundamental tenant of Christian teaching have to be jeopardized, or is it a relative term which can be used if one just doesn't like it?

One, it is a bit of joke, because it fits (jokingly and literally). Two, a perversion simply means "to twist the meaning or sense of: mistranslation"; hence the literal fitting for the NIV. Yes, I think the NIV is a mistranslation at MANY points opposed to a few verses here and there, ESPECIALLY in their latest rendition, so it literally fits the definition of a perversion.

So, what constitutes a translation being a perversion? Simply a mistranslation. No, I don't believe it has to be malicious in intent to fit the definition.

Thanks. It's just that I've heard that terminology thrown around by KJV Onlyists, and their meaning of perversion is definately "from the devil!".

Rick, who is that a picture of?

Django Reinhardt. Greatest guitar player that ever lived.

I think that picture was taken when he visited the states in 1946. He was on tour with Duke Ellington. Here's some more cool pictures: http://www.everwander.com/patrick/photos.php

Rick

openairboy

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by openairboy] [/quote]

 

[bond-servant]

"my ESV is the genuine leather...but the calfskin..........now that is nice stuff. "

Matthew, that's the ESV I have too. I love it!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Rolling Stone Refuses to Run Ad for Bible
Updated: Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2005 - 8:44 PM

By JAMES PRICHARD
Associated Press Writer

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) - Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

"Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the New York headquarters of Wenner Media LLC, publisher of Rolling Stone.

Lockhart said Zondervan, based in Grand Rapids, paid Wenner Media last July to run the ad in February, when the Bible is due on bookshelves.

On Tuesday, USA Today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy:

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV _ Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times _ and it makes more sense than ever."

Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said.

 

[bond-servant]

Really wish publishers would put thier money into translating the Bible into languages that don't have a Bible at all, instead of adding to the 100+ English translations we already have......

 

[larryjf]

I wonder how many people will really abandon their NIV's and switch to a formal translation as a protest to Zondervan?

That would be nice. The only problem is that Zondervan is not only the NIV, but also the KJV and NASB. So i guess the only 2 options left would be to get an ESV or a NKJV.

[Edited on 1-22-2005 by larryjf]

 

[Scot]

Is anyone familiar with The Modern King James?

http://www.mkjvonline.com/

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by openairboy
The New International (Per)version is coming out with their Today's New International (Per)version.


Hi Keith

Just out of interest, what versions do you recomend?

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Scot
Is anyone familiar with The Modern King James?

http://www.mkjvonline.com/

No, I'm not. I went to the website, but didn't learn much from it.

I'm interested. Tell me more about it.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by Ivan

I went to the website, but didn't learn much from it.

I'm interested. Tell me more about it.

Did you look here?:
http://www.sovgracepub.com/

I don't know that much about it myself. Check out all the other stuff that they have. They're definately into the puritans.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by Ivan

I went to the website, but didn't learn much from it.

I'm interested. Tell me more about it.

Did you look here?:
http://www.sovgracepub.com/

I don't know that much about it myself. Check out all the other stuff that they have. They're definately into the puritans.

Yes, I did go to that site. It says the MKJV is a modern version of the KJV, without the Thees and Thous and other, what I would consider, minor changes.

I think the translations might be worth a look. I like the KJV. It's the Bible I used for all of my life, until I was about 22 years old. KJV of verses are still etched on my brain!

 

[Scot]

I'm also interested in checkiing out the literal translation.

http://www.sovgracepub.com/bibles/literal.htm

I also like the KJV. It's the only one that I use (although I'm not one of those that say all other versions are not the Word of God).

 

[bond-servant]

Many of my memory verses are in King James also. Funny how they etch upon the brain. I suppose some of it has to do with the beauty and the meter....