The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Why do so many use the NIV?

I read somewhere that R.C. Sproul originally wanted to use the NIV for the Geneva Study Bible, but then reluctantly settled for the NKJV. I have noticed, now that I have a little collection of reformed books, that the majority of them use the NIV for their scriptural references. Authors such as Ferguson, Riddlebarger, Dever, Guiness, Ryken, Boice, Bridges, Pratt and Sproul all have books that primarily use the NIV.

So I was wondering if this were a personal author’s selection of translation? Or does it have to do more with which translation was easier for them to use in their book as far as copy rights and all?

Now I’m just a simple layman and I know very little about the original manuscripts and proper translation methods. But I have taken a look at some online interlinear bibles (I believe both Textus Receptus and Alexandrian texts) and It doesn’t take long for me to see why I prefer a more literal translation. I am not going to point out any versus that are questionable but It seems to me that when it comes to more important versus in my opinion for doctrinal purposes that the KJV, ASV, NKJV and NASB are the translations that most closely represent the original texts.

The more I see the differences between the literal English translations and that of the dynamic equivalent and paraphrased translations, the more I am just naturally drawn to reject the non-literal English translations.

In my opinion, when it comes to the essentials of the gospel, the more literal translations are quite understandable for even small children. So why go with a thought for thought approach?

Anyway, even though, I most likely will never come to use the KJV as my primary bible (only because I’m not comfortable with its style of old English) I have taken a liking to the ASV very much and use it with the unrevised NASB as my bibles. In fact I have come to appreciate and enjoy the readability of the more literal styles much more then the dynamic equivalent styles.

So my question is, why do you suppose that so many reformed authors continue to use the NIV for their books? Is it because they believe that the more literal translations are just a turn off or too hard to understand? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Dave.

I am certainly not going to guess as to why certain authors prefer the NIV (Dynamic Equivalence) versus one of the more traditional translations (Formal Equivalence). As you might realize, this subject has been thrashed myriad times on this Board and elsewhere.

I personal own a copy of the NIV but I never use it. I bought a copy for the purpose of studying it to see what all the rage was about some 25 years ago. My conclusion was that it is NOT a reliable "translation" and that it is a blight upon the Church. Let me relate, briefly, that when I was at WTS, my NT Greek professor was part of the translation committee of the NIV. One day I gathered the nerve to approach this esteemed scholar and asked the following question: "Would you agree that to the extent that someone accepts the Dynamic Equivalence theory of translation, that person to the same degree denies verbal plenary inspiration?" To my surprise, the answer I received was a reluctant, "Yes!". I admit, I didn't want to press my "luck" and press the issue, e.g., asking him why he was then part of the production of the NIV. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

There can be found myriad articles and books defending both the "Dynamic Equivalence" and those which argue against it. But here is one which is rather good in arguing against it, Against the Theory of 'Dynamic Equivalence', by Michael Marlowe.

It seems that those who are pro-NIV and argue that it is "easier to read" apparently have forgotten or perhaps chose to ignore the fact that the Bible is a divinely inspired book which is only "open" to those who have been given eyes to see, a mind to comprehend and a heart receptive to the Word of God. It is by the work of the Spirit of God that anyone is able to understand the Scriptures in a way that effects a certain and core change of one's being, and not the simplicity of the grammar and/or vocabulary in which it is written. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the Church to expound and teach the Scriptures so that they are understood. (cf. Neh 8:5-8; Eph 4:11, 12) In short, the "difficulty" experienced by most is not that the language, grammar and/or style of the translation is archaic, stilted or too literal but rather the "difficulty" is a heart problem. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

I don't really know to what extent this explains the reason for your question or not. I have heard the the Lockman Foundation who owns the NASB kept tight reigns in providing "'right's" for the general use of the translaton. Somewhat like Steve Jobs with Apple. OTOH, the NIV owners were extremely generous in providing proprietary "rights" in the use of its translation. (per Bill Gates philosophy)

All I know when I became a Christian in the late 70s, everyone discipling me were using the NASB. By the mid 80s, everyone were discipling using the NIV.

Pilgrim

Though I agree that there are problems with dynamic equivalent translations, many of which you mentioned.
I do not necessarily agree that it is a heart problem with those who use a dynamic equivalence over a more literal translation.
For sure there is a danger that this could be the case in many instances, but I know many dear Christians who use the NIV who in many ways are much closer to the Lord than I am, both in their knowledge and their walk with the thrice holy God.

Being someone who believes in using a more literal translation, I sometimes have a hard time explaining to people why a literal translation is better than a dynamic equivalent. I like your little talk with your former prof and thought it might be helpful if I was able to tell them of this experience.
With that in mind, I was wondering if I had your permission to use your little story the next time I felt the need to explain this issue.
Yes, giving them articles on the subject is helpful. But sometimes this isn't always possible when I don't have access to a computer, or I am with someone having coffee.
But your story is easy to remember and gets right to the point.


Tom

Actually, that is not what I wrote. Here are my exact words:

In short, the "difficulty" experienced by most is not that the language, grammar and/or style of the translation is archaic, stilted or too literal but rather the "difficulty" is a heart problem.

My comment was intended and directly toward those who are of the opinion that translations such as the KJV, ASV and for some even the NKJV and NASB are incomprehensible due to the "difficult" language used. What I find almost amusing is that these Formal Equivalent translations use proper English rather than slang or modern colloquialisms. And more often than not, their objections revolve around the "terminology" of those versions, e.g., "propitiation", "justification", "redemption" etc. I have to wonder if for them the dictionary is something they have relegated to the archives of ancient history as well?

Additionally, modern churches are to be found guilty of foisting these inferior "translations" upon the body of Christ as well by providing them in the pews, having cast off the more accurate and God-honoring translations which have been used for centuries. And, as I also mentioned Pastors/Elders have aggravated the situation by not preaching on the great doctrinal themes of the Bible which are based upon those comprehensive terms.

Sorry, but I find no acceptable excuse for using any translation that is based upon the Dynamic Equivalence translation of God's sacred Word. Ironically, with all the myriad translations that are on the shelves, never before in the history of the Church has there been such an embarrassing number of biblically illiterate professing Christians. Thus my conclusion that the problem is not one of language but of the heart.

In His grace,

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, I misunderstood you.
As you saw by my reply however, I agree that the dynamic equivalence provides the Church with some very serious problems.
The problem however is, almost every Church I have ever been to (with the exception of KJO Churches, which go too far) all preach out of the NIV.
The best someone like myself can do, is give articles such as you proved and pray that eyes will be opened.
When I press the issue too hard however, I end up alienating myself from the people I love and from those I come in contact with.


Tom

Hmmmmm, ya know Tom, standing for the truth does have a tendency to alienate people. (cf. Jh 6:65-68; 8:40, 45; 17:19; Rom 2:8; 2Cor 4:1, 2; Gal 4:16; Eph 4:11-15; 2Thess 2:10; 1Tim 6:5; 2Tim 2:25; 3:6, 7; 4:3, 4; Jam 5:19, 20; 1Jh 3:18, 19)

Matthew 10:34-38 (ASV) "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me."

In His grace,

Tom,


Here's a quote that I attempt to live by yet often miserably fail.


IMO, you are doing what is right before your loved ones, however, it is rarely obedient nor wise to lay ones pearls before scoffing swine.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Yes I am aware of that, but sometimes (depending on what the issue is) I know from experience that unless I am willing to end up divorced, with out a Church home etc... I am better off just keeping my mouth shut.

I am sorry if this sounds like I am taking the easy way out, but at this point I am not strong enough for that.
This doesn't mean I don't let people know what I believe on the issues, but I will not press the issue if their response is bad.
For instance I once told someone that I believed in predestination and after explaining what it meant. This person looked at me and in a loud voice said: "that is not my God!"
If this person was just a casual acquaintance, it would have been easier to take, but this person is someone close to me.

Tom

Wise man. I remember getting assaulted at a christian book store for looking at an NIV. It was this little old lady with a holy hairdo and an ankle length dress warning me that the KJV was the only REAL bible. *shrug

doulos,


I was once "assaulted" by a lady in a Christian bookstore when I asked her, "What is this new 'Spirit filled' Bible translation that you are having embossed?" (I was at the time having two new NKJV Bibles embossed for my son and daughter.)

She then started telling me about all the miracles and healings she had done, and forcefully <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> demanded to know if I had been "baptized in the Spirit". Before I could even say "been there, done that", she was insisting that I go with her to her car so that she could give me "literature".

When I (after taking a breath) said "No thank you I'm Reformed", she thought for only a second and said "What's that?" As I thought for moment for a reply to such a demanding and not so simple question, she walked off in a huff saying, "I only read the words in red."

I didn't, but to this day wish I had written a couple of verses in red for her to most likely ignore and throw away.

The verses that came to mind were Matthew 7:21-23.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

I work at Lifeway Christian Book Store, I try to hide the "Life in the Spirit" study bibles behind others. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And of course the store manager isn't ammused when she is constantly moving the Reformation Study Bibles off the endcaps where I put them to the least noticed part of the bible section.

I love it when someone walks in the store and without even taking a second to look around, comes to me and asks where the bibles are. So I then ask, what translation and I get the I'm from mars look from them with the reply, "King James of course! Duh!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But what I enjoy the most is when someone asks me, "where do you keep the message?" Where I look to my fellow sales associate and then reply, "Oh, I think those are over there in the fiction section." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I love working there. lol

Dave.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

I love it!

In defense of my owning and reading an NIV when I bought the thing I was 20ish and didn't know the difference between a dynamic equivalent and a dishwasher.

Most folks at the time said it was readable and just fine.

Did Zondervan do this on purpose? I mean shading meanings and changing things? Did they really update it? Did it need an update? Like the thing with the Red Sea really being the Reed Sea or whatever.

Dave,


Who says Christians can't have fun? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Roms 3:22-24