Hi Harry
I use both and more. The NIV is the biggest selling version in the UK
although I am not keen on the gender neutral version that is now also
available. I was brought up on the AV but changed to the NIV in the mid
/late 70's when the full version became available. I like the way it reads -
it's not perfect of course but neither is any translation. I read the ESV
for my daily readings in the morning although I find it a bit stodgy in
places. I read the book joint authored by Gordon Fee (a great Pentecostal
scholar) "How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth" many years ago and was
struck by the books assertion that we should endeavour to read a different
translation every year. I can't say that I have done that, but I have read
many versions. When I am preaching from the NT I have use along with others
The Precise Parallel New Testament (Oxford) which has the Greek text (I'm
don't have Greek) with 7 other versions.
I don't deny the need of the of the Holy Spirit to give illumination, but
that is no excuse for folk not being able to read it in the first place.
Blessings
Neil
P.S. The heel will never be as it was but is as good as it can be. Did an
8.5 mile walk in the Yorkshire Dales today it was wonderful.
-----Original Message-----
From: H Dorrington [mailto:hjdinfl@...]
Sent: 29 October 2004 05:25
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Bible Translations
Hi Neil,
Curious, why do you like the NIV over say the ESV?
No right or wrong answer or debate here, just wondering!
Harry
PS How is the heel?
Neil Whitcombe <Neil.Whitcombe@...> wrote:
Hi Terry
I seems that you got a copy of my post but nothing was received this end.
A word for word translation is not necessary full stop! I reiterate again
that the purpose of translation is not to bring the syntax of the host
language into the receptor language. Words simply convey meaning and it is
not necessary to have every word translated - we don't worship them.
You are correct in stating that the word "sarx" is in your opinion unhelpful
and you are entitled to your view even though I disagree. Why do you get
hung up on the way the NIV has interpreted it when many scholars understand
why it has been done, you are not seriously suggesting that there is some
sort of conspiracy theory with regards to the NIV and that scholars are paid
a commission for using it :) - it's not perfect but neither is any
translation. Even Harry having looked at Strong's suggest that sinful nature
is possible.
If you were to look up Greek words in the AV or the NKJ or any translation
using an exhaustive concordance, then you will see that all Bible versions
translate the same words in differing ways as the context permits, so the
NIV is doing nothing new. I know that some folk think the NIV is a little to
loose (is that one "o" or two my mind is tired) and in places it is, and all
Bible translations also interpretate, the NKJ included.
Have a look at THE NET BIBLE on www.netbible.org (think its right) a new
translation that you can download free of charge and buy in hard copy. It
contains some 60K translator's notes stating why they translated as they did
- very useful.
The issue of who owns the copyright and actually publishes is a "red
herring". Even the so called Christian publishing houses are out to make
money. Nelson were sold some years back to a company with interests in the
entertainment business. In the UK the NIV is published by Hodder which has
long ceased to be a Christian company. The Good News Bible (TEV in USA?) is
published by Harper.
Blessings
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Rayburn [mailto:terryrayburn@...]
Sent: 28 October 2004 04:44
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Bible Translations
Hi Neil,
I agree with the value of a modern translation in
avoiding the difficulty of explaining archaic
language.
I even agree that a word-for-word translation
is not necesary IF the translation conveys the
original concept.
My complaint is in translating a word which
does not have a specific "dynamic equivalent"
and INTERPRETING it, in an unjusified way.
I repeat, a clear and gross example is the
translation of "flesh" (sarx) as "sinful nature", as
the NIV does. There really is no justification
for that kind of interpretive translation.
At least the Living Bible and The Message
don't represent themselves as non-interpretive,
but the NIV advertisements from Zondervan
tout their fidelity to the original languages.
Blessings,
Terry
Neil Whitcombe wrote:
If some one were to give you a letter/document to translate into English
from German/French/Spanish or any language would you regard it a unfaithful
translation if every single word were not translated - I think not? Neither
would you expect the translator to italicise words which would have to be
added in order for the sentence structure to make sense. Why should it be
any different when it comes to translations of the Bible? Unlike Islam which
seems to worship/regard the "very words" as sacred and therefore can not be
translated we do not, they are just the vehicle of conveying the revelation
of God to us. The issue is not therefore to try and bring the syntax of the
other language into our language which is difficult even when dealing with
other European languages yet alone with languages like Greek & Hebrew.
Alistair McGrath in his book on the AV says I believe helpfully that it is
better not to speak of Dynamic Equivalence or Formal Equivalence but to
think in terms of whether the translation follows closely the "Host"
language or the "Receptor" language, and of course the choice one makes,
makes a huge difference to the type of translation one ends up with.
It beats me how anyone who is serious in wanting to convey the message of
Salvation to our contemporary society can use anything other than a modern
translation - after all preaching is not explaining archaisms! When I was
first converted in the 1970's and used the AV I can well remember thinking
that the "Twain" in Isa.6 was some sort of covering and not simply "two".
No translation is perfect and with every translation there is a real element
of interpretation, the issue is whether we acknowledge this or not.
Blessings
Neil
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
Visit "Grace For Life"
An Oasis of Rest For the People of God
http://www.graceforlife.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace