/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Speaking only for myself, it's an overly simplistic translation. I figure it's probably better for English Second Language folks, and the more mentally / linguistically challenged.

I'm pretty sure it's just cause they translate brother as brother and sister, man as human and call phoebe a deacon rather than servant.

Very protestant translation.

>(((Textual Criticism)))

>poor translations to conform to evangelical nonsense

>gender neutral language

If you're protestant, get a KJV

If you're Catholic, get a DRB

If you're orthodox, wait until they can be bothered to make an official translation

RSV or ESV is better even if you're a protestant. No real need to use an NIV. And I'm saying this as a person who's first Bible was an NIV (it was a paperback with a blue cover!)

>>729889

I dunno im using an NIV and i dont mind it at all like very little is lost and "in the midst of you" is a better translation than "in you". Like a lot of the essential parts are translated in such a manner as to better communicate doctrine catholic or protestant the exegesis on more confusing passages are basically what the NIV says plainly for both protestant and catholic ideas.

>>729908

It's not terrible in my opinion. I've seen some stranger translations for sure. I'm actually not very familiar with the NIV versus other translations since I haven't used it in so long, only used it in elementary school. I just wouldn't pick it if I was arguing with someone over the internet, which sadly happens too many times haha. But usually when I'm arguing it's with some ultra liberal sola scriptura LGBT-Christian who is trying to warp the scripture into something it's not, and so you have to go by what the Bible says, or it's some fedora, who again, you have to try and show what the Bible says. As for my own understanding, the translation isn't really that important, because we go by the interpretation of the Church Fathers, so reading commentary is far more important, than the translation itself. If you read good commentary then I'm sure the NIV is fine. Other people probably could give more details about the issues it has (or doesn't have). I've read the ESV New Testament mostly and didn't have too much of a problem with it either.

I don't loathe it, but there are better. My problem with most modern translations is the underlying NT texts they use (The Nestle-Aland/UBS critical texts). It's not just the NIV. It's practically all translations. It doesn't matter how well done they are if the underlying text goes against millenia of tradition. I also prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew for underlying OT texts, but that's less of an issue.

That said, a person is fine with these until heavy scrutiny. There is still enough of the Word in there, and I think it's absurd to say otherwise. I mean, I first discovered Christ from reading the RSV..which uses critical texts as well.