Yes, public reading leads me to the NIV too. The same when I’m preaching or leading Bible Studies. In my experience, most Christians in the UK use the NIV so it makes it easier if I select that.

As for devotional readability, the NIV is very good but I prefer the HCSB.

As for gender neutral translations….arghh!

Andy – thanks for the link, great resource, I’ve passed it on.

Attempting to use “they” as a gender neutral singular irritates me even in everyday conversation and I refuse to use it. I certainly wouldn’t use a Bible that transalted “he” in that way.

Gender neutral translation which confuses the singular with the plural (using “they” for “he or she”) irritates me immensely even in everyday conversation and I refuse to use it. I certainly wouldn’t use any Bible translation that worked like that.

That said, I must say that I’m not happy with the NRSV and its (sometimes clumsy attempts at) ‘gender neutrality’. In some cases, for example, it actually changes the meaning of the text.

A classic example is John 14:21. The NIV reads: ‘Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” However, in the NRSV this ends up as: They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

In this example, words which began as addressing the individual end up speaking to a group of people! I understand and sympathise with the translators’ attempts to get rid of the gender problem (it would have been ridiculous to have ‘he/she’ throughout the passage for example), but if this means changing the actual meaning of the text then surely there’s something wrong. After all, if we want to understand the bible properly (even if it’s to criticise it!) we must be sure that we have before us an accurate rendering of the original text or we’re likely to arrive at all kinds of weird and wonderful interpretations.

I wonder what others out there think?

Thanks for the comment! Firstly, you\’re correct about Nida\’s move away from dynamic and formal equivalence. Today, the Nida Institute speaks of a \”Post-Nida\” era where scholars no longer believe that all translation should be conducted according to the theories of dynamic or functional equivalence.

And it\’s not just the Nida Institute: within the field of Translation Studies, the idea that a translation must necessarily conform to equivalence is now seriously outdated. There is recognition among scholars that the task of translation is very much more complex than previously thought.

Nevertheless, the terms \”formal equivalence\” and \”dynamic/functional equivalence\” still serve as useful nouns for particular translations even if the approaches themselves are no longer considered to be all-encompassing goals for every translation effort.

Regarding the NET, it is less literal than the ESV but I still wouldn\’t call it a dynamic equivalence translation. The same goes for the NRSV. When you compare them with the NLT or the CEV it\’s quite clear that they sit in a different place. I think it\’s hard to say whether the NET is more or less literal than the NRSV, they\’re roughly the same to me.

You asked about the NET\’s approach to gender. I think it takes a good, sensible, balanced approach. At times, adelphoi is rendered \”brothers and sisters\” and elsewhere, participles have been translated as \”the one who.\” On the other hand, I don\’t think it unnecessarily neutralises masculine nouns and pronouns.

> As the translation team set out to produce an
> evangelical translation do you think this may
> have limited its use outside of evangelical
> circles (for example by academic/secular
> theologians).

I think this is undoubtedly an issue but it is something that affects all Bible translations. It\’s true that some may be put off by the NET translators being Evangelicals but other translations have similar problems. For example, Evangelicals have long been suspicious of the RSV / NRSV. Protestants are usually suspicious of the New Jerusalem Bible. I don\’t think there has ever been (or ever will be) a Bible translation that is universally considered \”neutral\”.

> as an undergraduate I used the RSV and in my
> present setting I use the NRSV: I would
> welcome any comments you could shed upon
> these particular translations.

I think both are fine translations. In its day, RSV was very impressive but I think it\’s largely superseded by the NRSV. The latter is a very fine translation and I have made good use of it over the years.

I wonder if you read Bishop Arthur Roche (Catholic Bishop of Leeds’) recent comments about the use of the terms “dynamic” and “formal equivalence”. Although he was speaking in relation to the translation of the liturgy from Latin, he claimed that Eugene Nida has abandoned the use of the terms as he regards them as insufficient in themselves. I haven’t had time to look into finding Nida’s interview, but I wonder what your thoughts are on this?

My personal preference for meditation in the NJB (I know there are some scholarly issues here, but it is the bible I am most comfortable with). For Academic purposes I have tended to use the standards specified by my institutions, as an undergraduate I used the RSV and in my present setting I use the NRSV: I would welcome any comments you could shed upon these particular translations. My preference for indepth exegesis is to use the original language – after a year of Hebrew and Greek I am able to get buy with a “readers version” of the text in the classical languages. These provide footnotes that define any words that appear less than 50 times in the Old/New Testaments.