This was originally going to be a post about just the NIV, and then I was going to finish up this series by a post about the NET Bible and the NASB together. But I was doing a three-way comparison this afternoon on Bible Gateway between these three, NIV on the left, NET in the middle, and NASB on the right, going verse-by-verse in Romans 3, and I noticed something I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t arranged them this way. I noticed that the NIV is the easiest and clearest contemporary English translation of the three; the NASB is considerably more difficult owing to its way of translating some of the original languages idioms and word order — the way the translators tried to stick as closely to the original words and still have an understandable English translation; and smack dab in the middle between the NIV and the NASB is the NET Bible, perfectly moderating between the two, sometimes being closer to the NIV, and other times being closer to the NASB.
The interesting thing I noticed, besides that order, is that the NIV seems just as accurate to the original languages’ message as the NASB! It just communicates that message in more contemporary and understandable English. Very rarely do I ever find anything in either of those translations that I can point to as being a translator’s opinion, or a translator’s own theological interpretation. And the same applies to the NET as well, as far as I can see, though I don’t have quite as much experience with the NET as I do with the other two.
So these are my conclusions: 1) The NASB is an excellent formal equivalence translation, excellent for study, but more difficult for reading out loud to a group and more difficult to understand in many cases. I highly recommend it, but keep in mind its difficulties. While it would work for somebody’s one-and-only Bible, it may be better for use as a comparison in Bible study. 2) The NET is probably considered to be a moderating translation, but I would place it on the scale about halfway between the NASB and the NIV. Its translators strove for literal accuracy, but also tried to keep it readable, and rely on their many thousands of translators notes which are included in some of their printed Bibles (the First Edition) to explain any translation questions which may arise. If I were to buy a printed NET Bible for personal use, because of size and weight, and font size (readability) it would have to be the Reader’s Edition, which uses an 11 pt. font for readability, and I would have to rely on the NET Bible Online Study Environment for the 62000 notes, because on the computer I can adjust the font size to accommodate my eyesight. 3) That leaves us with the NIV, which is simply the best combination of literal accuracy and easy-readability of any Bible on the market today, in my humble and educated opinion. Is it perfect? Of course not! Don’t be ridiculous! There is no such thing as a perfect Bible translation. There are times I wonder if a nuance in the original language has been left out or changed. I’m not always positive about the translators’ change from “brothers” to “brothers and sisters”, for example. And to someone like me who went to school back in the 60s, the change from the generic “he” to the contemporary generic singular “they” can be maddening. But that’s how much the English language has changed over the past 30 years or so.
Little is said about the translators themselves. They’re usually just an amorphous blob out there somewhere, nameless, faceless. But the fact is nearly every well-known and accepted translation on the market today was translated by a committee, a group of people. And it’s a fact that each of these translation teams is made up of fine scholars, most of them godly scholars, who have done their utmost to bring to us the very best English translation of the Holy Scriptures that is humanly possible! The difference usually comes in the translation philosophy of the group, or the philosophy that group is charged with. These translations are faithful transmissions of the original manuscripts into today’s English, and are all worthy of our respect, if not reverence. The translation teams should also be held up as worthy of our respect and we shouldn’t be tearing down any Bible translators as was so commonly done a few years ago during what was often known as the “translation wars”.
At any rate, these are my choices for the final three among my preferred translations. Third place would go to the NASB, because somebody has to be third and the other two are generally easier to read and understand. Second place goes to the NET Bible, because of its accuracy, relatively easy reading and understanding of the NET text itself, and the 62,000+ study and translator’s notes to help our understanding and which make the NET Bible First Edition a powerful study Bible. The first place is the new NIV. Almost perfect. But not quite.
Ron said:
I like the NKJV. It retains an old fashioned feel like the old King James Bible but with a modern twist as I like to call it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary Zimmerli said:
Well, Ron, then you will be interested in a post I wrote last week and the comments at https://sundrytimes.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-nkjv-and-the-esv/
I like the NKJV, just not as much as these three translations. But you might be interested in what I wrote about it there.
LikeLike
gracedme said:
Ironic that you make this post. Yesterday, I finally resolved to use the NIV after months of reading the ESV, HCSB, and NKJV. I came to the same conclusions that you did in that the NIV is easy to read, yet still retains authority as a solid translation of the Bible. I dislike the lack of traditional language (propitiation, et al.), but I can overlook that because the HCSB (IMHO closest to the NIV in philosophy and reading) retains the traditional diction but just becomes awkward in its seemingly random usage of Yahweh vs Lord/God/etc. and Messiah versus Christ. I find the pronoun changes in the NIV not to be a big issue, but at 25 I grew up while these changes were evolving so maybe I am somewhat jaded. I am also an English major with some Linguistics study in college, so I am less hidebound on he or she vs the new singular plural “they” that is emerging. Zondervan is marketing their product – let’s face it – but there are legitimate changes introduced that are not without a basis.
The only downside is that I won really nice copies of the ESV and HCSB from various places on the web, and I prefer the Premium Calfskin leather of my ESV. (I’ve never owned a Bible of this quality, and most likely would never pay that much for one.) My NIV is a rather cheap fake leather copy, and I am almost positive my wife would kick me out if I purchased (or won) yet another Bible.
I came to the conclusion that as much as I want to love the ESV, it’s not a major stride over the NKJV and it truthfully doesn’t do what it says that it set it to do as a literal translation. I found that while it does retain much of the poetic beauty, passages often seemed obfuscated for the sake of “Biblish-sounding” obfuscation rather than going the direction of its counterpart, the NRSV, and choosing a more modernized yet literal translation. I’m still impressed with the number of people who carry the ESV in my anecdotal experience, but it is not “catching on” contrary to wide opinion.
I don’t know if you saw the study, but one came out that Shakespearean language actually forces your brain to work more, and so it makes you “smarter” in a sense to mentally grapple with more complex language. (Link: http://bigthink.com/how-to-think-like-shakespeare/this-is-your-brain-on-shakespeare) Obviously, this is an excellent argument for literal translations, and it’s why I will always keep NKJVs/ESVs/NASBs/KJVs in my study, but even reading the NIV, it’s still the honor of kings to search out Scripture, I think.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on translation and versions!
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
And thank you for sharing your thoughts!
“… but even reading the NIV, it’s still the honor of kings to search out Scripture…”
I like that! That’s very good. It’s something we all need to consider and keep in mind as we pursue our Bible studies.
Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to take that calfskin cover and put it on your relatively cheap NIV? I’ve wished for that myself!
LikeLike
gracedme said:
I’d change it over in a heartbeat! It’s really a quality Bible binding, but I’ll stick with my el cheapo NIV for the time being. I never understood all of the blog posts and discussions on those premium Bibles, but I do now! We are blessed to have what we have!
LikeLike
Dan said:
The more I toy with the Common English Bible and the NET Bible, the more I keep coming “home” to the NIV2011. From the TNIV to the NIV2011 I have just found it much more readable, a bit more “accurate” (in a certain sense), and just more useful. I TRY to stick with others, but overall will probably use the NIV most and supplement with the CEB (which is really growing on me) and the NET Bible.
LikeLike
TC said:
I have been using the update NIV of late. Much of the gender issues are secondary. I believe the translators revisited every verse in their effort to ensure accuracy.
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
I think you’re right about that, TC. I think the CBT did a tremendous job with the NIV this time around.
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
Dan, did you say you think the NIV2011 seems more readable, accurate, and useful than the TNIV? Just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
I have to smile when I think about how several years ago almost nobody among the “bibliobloggers” (as we used to call ourselves) would admit to even using the NIV. And when it was made known that the TNIV and the NIV84 would be replaced by a new NIV, there was such a hew and cry (among others, not among us so much) that nobody would buy it, and it couldn’t be much good. Now that has seemed to die down and the NIV is still among the very best selling of all Bible translations. Even more, I see bloggers singing its praise!
LikeLike
TC said:
As you know, the “new” is almost, always a “suspect,” until proven otherwise. This is the case with the new NIV here.
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
Yeah, that’s right, and that doesn’t bother me too much. What bothers me is true brothers and sisters who will not even consider it at this late date, afraid that it’s a corruption of their beloved 1984 NIV! Can you believe it? NIV84-Only! But they’re brothers and sisters; I’m working on them when the subject comes up, standing by the new NIV.
LikeLike
TC said:
Yeah, it’s interesting how these only-isms develop. Well, all the best in your mission. 😉
LikeLike
R. Daly said:
I have written several blog posts about the NIV-2011 on my
Dalys N.T. Translation Project site. I recommend the ESV to
people who want a “conservative” update of the RSV (which
by the way is not nearly as bad as is often alleged!). But I
have come to the reasoned conclusion that the ESV is in
some ways, a “politically” correct version. Example: placing
“brothers” in the text to translate ADELPHOI, and in the footnotes
indicating that the word ” depending on the context refers to…
siblings in a family (brothers and sisters)…” The use of “they,”
“them,” “themselves” etc. for the “generic” he, him, his, etc,
doesn’t bother me. They have been used in this way for
some time and modern English usage allows such. That’s
just the way it is. An added benefit of their use is the fact
that a person must pay close attention to the context to see
if the referent is one person or several. Tradition has a lot to
do with translation procedure and choices.
I do believe the NIV-2011 edges out the ESV and all editions
of the NASB in overall accuracy. The NIV-2011 is readable,
idiomatic, and accurate most of the time. I do not agree with
all the choices the translators made, but it is a useful version
and worthy of study. I do believe they should have translated
more of the inferential particles, as they are important for
exegetical study.
I believe the ASV-1901 and the NIV-2011 make wonderful
companions. The ASV is a very literally accurate version among
the modified-literal Bibles, the archaic language and awkward
phrasing not withstanding. The NIV-2011 is the best among
the idiomatic Bibles. Both versions likely give the best of both
worlds and therefore complement each other extremely well.
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
Really interesting! And now you can compare the two of them side-by-side on Bible Gateway! I’ll have to try that.
LikeLike
broken bells said:
Howdy! I realize this is kind of off-topic however I needed to ask.
Does building a well-established website such as yours
take a large amount of work? I’m completely new to blogging but I do write in my journal daily.
I’d like to start a blog so I can share my
own experience and thoughts online. Please
let me know if you have any kind of suggestions or tips for brand new aspiring bloggers.
Thankyou!
LikeLike
Gary Zimmerli said:
Interesting questions, broken bells. You are right, it is off topic. For that reason I think I will copy your message and put it on a new post, a separate post, and try to answer your questions there. It should show up here at Sundry Times in the next day or so.
LikeLike