Member
The Bible is originally translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Since every language has shades of meaning depending upon context, the task of translating can be accomplished only by Holy Spirit led diligence, language acuity, checking word meanings, and crosschecking manuscripts.
There are hundreds of dialects of English alone. Think of that we have dictionaries, lexicons, and thesauruses with varying definitions and synonyms for any given word. Get two people together, one from Louisiana who speaks "Creole" and an Englishman who speaks "the Queen's English," and they would be hard pressed to fully understand each others' verbal expressions.
My first thoughts about the thread included that we need different versions because of the confusion of language from the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:9 - Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. (NASB)
I also balked at what seemed the unfounded, nonsensical argument against the NIV, so checked the web for any background on the NIV translators and the process for bringing the translation to fruition. Here is what I found from The American Bible Society:
ABOUT THE NIV BIBLE
"More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the NIV. The scholars represent more than 20 denominations.
In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.
It took ten years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.
The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:
Initial Translation Team
Intermediate Editorial Committee
General Editorial Committee
Stylist and Critics
Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)
Final Stylistic Review
Executive's Committee's Final Reading
The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation."
BIBLE TRANSLATION
"At IBS, we hold the ministry of Bible translation as a sacred trust. As a Bible society, we understand the importance of preserving the integrity of God's Holy Word by accurately translating the meaning of the original biblical texts."
I was also amazed to find at the same site that there is a book, ©1999, regarding the very thoughts that had occurred to me about Babel. This surprising concurrence leads me to believe that my initial direction to Genesis 11:9 was from the Holy Spirit. The subject is in straight relation to the thread query, and thus it seems fitting to share the title and the site's synopsis of the book.
Bible, Babel and Babble
The Foundations of Bible Translation
By Dr. Scott Munger
The Foundations of Bible Translation
"Babel’s effects continue, and not only among modern 'tower builders.' Misunderstandings related to the nature of language also confuse the Church, whether in missionary work, cross-cultural dialogue or the use of the Bible itself. Sadly, there is a great deal of babble spread around concerning the essence of Bible translation. Intra-church strife, and even carnage, result from Babel’s confusion. This work, drawn upon the study of numerous languages and cultures, is an attempt to dispel some of that confusion."
Originally, God used an NIV New Testament as the instrument for my salvation. It was a wonderful entrance, because its style allowed me to read cover to cover to get a seamless overview. When I went to find a complete Bible, I purchased the New Jerusalem Bible for two reasons. First, it contains the Apocrypha, something which piqued my curiousity. Also, the language style of the New Jerusalem is uniquely beautiful.
Ultimately, I was inclined away from the NJB. The Apocrypha is primarily known as a part of Catholic doctrine, and is not generally accepted in the Christian community. The NJB also has many scholarly introductions to Bible text. The commentaries make statements about source of Scripture and authorship. Eventually those academic insertions seemed flawed, especially after my adding the KJV and NKJV to my reading.
Now I use the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJ regularly, and compare quite a few other versions in online searches.
One closing note - there is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. Two lovely paraphrases are the Living Bible and The Message. Neither "pretends" to be a translation.
There are hundreds of dialects of English alone. Think of that we have dictionaries, lexicons, and thesauruses with varying definitions and synonyms for any given word. Get two people together, one from Louisiana who speaks "Creole" and an Englishman who speaks "the Queen's English," and they would be hard pressed to fully understand each others' verbal expressions.
My first thoughts about the thread included that we need different versions because of the confusion of language from the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:9 - Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. (NASB)
I also balked at what seemed the unfounded, nonsensical argument against the NIV, so checked the web for any background on the NIV translators and the process for bringing the translation to fruition. Here is what I found from The American Bible Society:
ABOUT THE NIV BIBLE
"More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the NIV. The scholars represent more than 20 denominations.
In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.
It took ten years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.
The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:
Initial Translation Team
Intermediate Editorial Committee
General Editorial Committee
Stylist and Critics
Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)
Final Stylistic Review
Executive's Committee's Final Reading
The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation."
BIBLE TRANSLATION
"At IBS, we hold the ministry of Bible translation as a sacred trust. As a Bible society, we understand the importance of preserving the integrity of God's Holy Word by accurately translating the meaning of the original biblical texts."
I was also amazed to find at the same site that there is a book, ©1999, regarding the very thoughts that had occurred to me about Babel. This surprising concurrence leads me to believe that my initial direction to Genesis 11:9 was from the Holy Spirit. The subject is in straight relation to the thread query, and thus it seems fitting to share the title and the site's synopsis of the book.
Bible, Babel and Babble
The Foundations of Bible Translation
By Dr. Scott Munger
The Foundations of Bible Translation
"Babel’s effects continue, and not only among modern 'tower builders.' Misunderstandings related to the nature of language also confuse the Church, whether in missionary work, cross-cultural dialogue or the use of the Bible itself. Sadly, there is a great deal of babble spread around concerning the essence of Bible translation. Intra-church strife, and even carnage, result from Babel’s confusion. This work, drawn upon the study of numerous languages and cultures, is an attempt to dispel some of that confusion."
Scrappy, greetings with our Lord's blessings.scrappy said:a question
in all the differing views on this and that version or translation of the Bible, and with the differing ways that these can and do show the living word of God, at no point has the jerusalem or new jerusalem versions/translations been mentioned.
so my question is this, why?
and to further expand the question, is it because we haven't read or studied it, or because we have read it and found it flawed?
God bless
scrappy
Originally, God used an NIV New Testament as the instrument for my salvation. It was a wonderful entrance, because its style allowed me to read cover to cover to get a seamless overview. When I went to find a complete Bible, I purchased the New Jerusalem Bible for two reasons. First, it contains the Apocrypha, something which piqued my curiousity. Also, the language style of the New Jerusalem is uniquely beautiful.
Ultimately, I was inclined away from the NJB. The Apocrypha is primarily known as a part of Catholic doctrine, and is not generally accepted in the Christian community. The NJB also has many scholarly introductions to Bible text. The commentaries make statements about source of Scripture and authorship. Eventually those academic insertions seemed flawed, especially after my adding the KJV and NKJV to my reading.
Now I use the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJ regularly, and compare quite a few other versions in online searches.
One closing note - there is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. Two lovely paraphrases are the Living Bible and The Message. Neither "pretends" to be a translation.