The New Dude's admission.....

[LawrenceU]

Personally, I have found several passages during my preaching through the Gospels and the Psalms where I think the NIV translated the passage in a manner superior to that of most other English versions (including the ESV - gasp!). It's not consistent in doing so, but it happens.

It has to be remembered that the NIV is an eclectic translation, meaning that it is a compilation of various translators working on the various books. The committee has never published a "who's who" that would give us a peek into what was worked through by whom, but I'm sure that at least some of those on the translating committee has some respectable credentials, even if we would not agree with them at all points of their translating philosophy, or on certain points of theology.

It can't hurt to read the NIV. In fact, I have in the past gone back to the NIV during my more devotional reading just to take a break from the standard translations. Each has its virtues and its poorly rendered portions. However, the TNIV is in another category all together, an one from which I refuse to read (having read through much of it when it was freely distributed at my first seminary in an attempt to disseminate it among those who were training to be the future ministers of the Word) as the philosophy driving that entire work was produced by the egalitarian/feminist movement as it has come into the Church.

One of my professors worked on OT texts on the NIV. He has since passed away. For what it's worth he was somewhat disappointed in the final product. At one time there was an available list of men who worked on it.

 

[Jon Lake]

Personally, I have found several passages during my preaching through the Gospels and the Psalms where I think the NIV translated the passage in a manner superior to that of most other English versions (including the ESV - gasp!). It's not consistent in doing so, but it happens.

It has to be remembered that the NIV is an eclectic translation, meaning that it is a compilation of various translators working on the various books. The committee has never published a "who's who" that would give us a peek into what was worked through by whom, but I'm sure that at least some of those on the translating committee has some respectable credentials, even if we would not agree with them at all points of their translating philosophy, or on certain points of theology.

It can't hurt to read the NIV. In fact, I have in the past gone back to the NIV during my more devotional reading just to take a break from the standard translations. Each has its virtues and its poorly rendered portions. However, the TNIV is in another category all together, an one from which I refuse to read (having read through much of it when it was freely distributed at my first seminary in an attempt to disseminate it among those who were training to be the future ministers of the Word) as the philosophy driving that entire work was produced by the egalitarian/feminist movement as it has come into the Church.

One of my professors worked on OT texts on the NIV. He has since passed away. For what it's worth he was somewhat disappointed in the final product. At one time there was an available list of men who worked on it.

DOH! Have I not been hurt enough....

 

[Prufrock]

At one time there was an available list of men who worked on it.

And indeed, there still is: see here.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 05:08:36 EST-----

I will say that some of the names were somewhat unexpected by me.

 

[Jon Lake]

At one time there was an available list of men who worked on it.

And indeed, there still is: see here.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 05:08:36 EST-----

I will say that some of the names were somewhat unexpected by me.

A fair number of reformed folk.....

 

[Grymir]

Of course, there are 100,000,000 million binding options!

 

[nicnap]

I suspect this is a forced confession. I realize that you probably are not at liberty right now to respond directly, but give us some indication if you are being held against your will and are being forced to say such things. Try and stay on the line as long as you can, we'll triangulate and find your position. Be encouraged - help is on the way.

(I have noticed a trend in my posting lately...there is a lot more laughter than words of substance, but I can't help it. You people make me laugh.)

 

[Jon Lake]

I suspect this is a forced confession. I realize that you probably are not at liberty right now to respond directly, but give us some indication if you are being held against your will and are being forced to say such things. Try and stay on the line as long as you can, we'll triangulate and find your position. Be encouraged - help is on the way.

(I have noticed a trend in my posting lately...there is a lot more laughter than words of substance, but I can't help it. You people make me laugh.)

Aim to please.

 

[Staphlobob]

I saw a thread on the King James (a Bible I like when I wish to read a translation that "forces" me to be reflective.) I however (prepare to stone me) STILL like the NIV....there I said it. With all the new Bibles out, old ones like Geneva and KJV with a following, I sometimes feel "odd man out" but I REALY like the NIV, a number of my commentaries use the NIV I still use the NIV Study Bible (2002 update), as well as a Cambridge thinline. So, there, I have admitted my "heresy" I like the NIV , after all these years.

Hmmm. What translation would Monk use? I don't think it would be the NIV. Maybe the NASB (for its particularity in translation)?

At least you're not using "The Message." (Which, btw, a PCA pastor I know simply loves!)

 

[Jon Lake]

I saw a thread on the King James (a Bible I like when I wish to read a translation that "forces" me to be reflective.) I however (prepare to stone me) STILL like the NIV....there I said it. With all the new Bibles out, old ones like Geneva and KJV with a following, I sometimes feel "odd man out" but I REALY like the NIV, a number of my commentaries use the NIV I still use the NIV Study Bible (2002 update), as well as a Cambridge thinline. So, there, I have admitted my "heresy" I like the NIV , after all these years.

Hmmm. What translation would Monk use? I don't think it would be the NIV. Maybe the NASB (for its particularity in translation)?

At least you're not using "The Message." (Which, btw, a PCA pastor I know simply loves!)

You are RIGHT....in the poll we need a good Monk version! You really know a PCA Pastor who gets into the Message!

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Ok, I'll be open and admit it too. The NIV is... not terrible. Ah, a relief!

Seriously, our family uses the NIV because our church and pastor prefer it. I for one am a Geneva, NAS, or HCSB guy myself. (Oh, for one of those Bibles with the Geneva or Reformation Bible notes...)

Once the kids get older I dunno. One family in the church got us to switch from the "New King James Apostle's Creed" in the Trinity Hymnal to the older version when we say it in worship, but the Nearly Inspired is a little more entrenched.

Still, with a number of relatively minor modifications, e.g. changing "This is what the Lord says" to "Thus says the Lord", the NIV could be a great translation.

 

[Igor]

Well, I must confess I have been using the NIV for many years - it was the very first Bible in English I acquired. I do appreciate its smooth-reading, idiomatic English - no other translation for me is so easy to read and memorize. But... after the same translators (some of them) produced the TNIV, I feel like there is something wrong about the whole thing - kind of a bad feeling. I just can't help that. Besides, it is very difficult to memorize from the translation when you know that in, say, ten or twenty years from now it is likely to be out of use - as any other modern translation.
"I may be wrong, no doubt I am, I generally am wrong, but this is my opinion."

 

[Jon Lake]

Well, I must confess I have been using the NIV for many years - it was the very first Bible in English I acquired. I do appreciate its smooth-reading, idiomatic English - no other translation for me is so easy to read and memorize. But... after the same translators (some of them) produced the TNIV, I feel like there is something wrong about the whole thing - kind of a bad feeling. I just can't help that. Besides, it is very difficult to memorize from the translation when you know that in, say, ten or twenty years from now it is likely to be out of use - as any other modern translation.
"I may be wrong, no doubt I am, I generally am wrong, but this is my opinion."

We must give credit where credit is due, the NIV was a conservative "reply" to the RSV (the NASB was around and many felt it VERY good for study but it was a little weak for public reading), the credit we owe the NIV is this, it was the first Bible an entire generation read cover to cover, it was used greatly of the Lord (the Lord can use flawed things to bring about His Perfect Will) all in all, the NIV was a great aid to the Church, flaws and all.

 

[TimV]

Igor, which Russian Bible do you use? What do most Russians use?

 

[Igor]

Igor, which Russian Bible do you use? What do most Russians use?

I would say there is actually just one Russian translation - that is the Synodal Version (produced by the Orthodox Church in the 19th century, the NT based on the Textus Receptus, of course). It is accepted by all the Protestants as well and I do not think that anything will change in the foreseeable future.
There some modern translations though, but they are used by very few and only for private reading and, perhaps, for Bible studies.