NIV

LeaderNotFollower said:

If the NIV is the closest to the source, how come it is the new international version? Wouldn't the old one be closer to the source?

Click to expand...

Corban said:

i take occasion with use of the NIV, I prefer to drink water as close to the source as possible not downstream when it has been waided through by ignorant translators. 2 Peter 1:20 "knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." who are these translators of the NIV, why should i listen to their private interpretation?

Click to expand...

JamieDD said:

As far as I believe, every translation of the Bible is translated with a lot of care. There are often footnotes as well if there are any disagreements between the original scriptures, for example, my NCV always states where certain verses are not in certain manuscripts and when different scriptures say different things.

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

The NIV is the best translation of the Bible we have today, IMHO.

Click to expand...

This is a version prepared by Roman Catholic scholars in Great Britain, under the general editorship of Alexander Jones of Christ's College, Liverpool, assisted by twenty-seven colleagues. It is notable as being the first English version to be done by Roman Catholics on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than upon the Latin Vulgate. In 1943 Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical letter on Biblical studies called Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he gave permission for this departure from Roman Catholic tradition.

The Jerusalem Bible derives its name and its character from an earlier French version, called La Bible de Jérusalem. This French version (published in 1956, and revised 1961) was prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem, on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek. An introductory note acknowledges this indebtedness: "The introductions and notes of this Bible are, with minor variations and revisions, a translation of those which appear in La Bible de Jérusalem (one volume edition, 1961) published under the general editorship of Père Roland de Vaux, O.P. by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, but are modified in the light of subsequent revised fascicules." The annotations of the French edition were remarkably full and helpful, and the idea of the English Jerusalem Bible was to turn the French version, together with all of its annotations, into English, with constant reference to the Hebrew and Greek. And so the translation is based upon the Hebrew and Greek as interpreted by the French version.

Click to expand...

Trey of Diamonds said:

I disagree. I much prefer the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

The Jerusalem Bible (1966)
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

Click to expand...

Riverwolf said:

That one's especially cool because J.R.R. Tolkien was involved in the editing process.

Click to expand...