View Full Version : NIV Bible


bakura82
02-28-2010, 06:19 PM
After having some issues with the NIV bible I downloaded from Sony (http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/international-bible-society/holy-bible-niv/_/R-400000000000000099542), I thought I would do a search here. It turns out that I am not alone (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?p=678185) when I think the navigation is very poor. Sherman has a REALLY well done KJV (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31709) with an AWESOME TOC. I grabbed it, but the truth is, I prefer to read the NIV. So, I downloaded the Sony version.

With the knowledge that I would simply have to bear the navigation of the Sony ePUB (http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/international-bible-society/holy-bible-niv/_/R-400000000000000099542), something even more terrible happened today. While in church, the pastor was sharing about Jacob and Esau. Braving the giggle from my wife as I pulled out my new PRS-600, I navigated to Genesis 33. As I was reading, I saw a VERY unusual anomaly in a passage. This is what the Sony eBook says:

Gen 33:13 But Jacob said to him, "My LORD knows that the children are tender and that I must care for the ewes and cows that are nursing their young. If they are driven hard just one day, all the animals will die. 14 So let my LORD go on ahead of his servant, while I move along slowly at the pace of the droves before me and that of the children, until I come to my LORD in Seir."

The bold emphasis is wrong -- VERY wrong. This following, via BibleGateway.co, is correct with emphasis added again:

Gen 33:13 But Jacob said to him, "My lord knows that the children are tender and that I must care for the ewes and cows that are nursing their young. If they are driven hard just one day, all the animals will die. 14 So let my lord go on ahead of his servant, while I move along slowly at the pace of the droves before me and that of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir."

For those who aren't aware, when you see LORD in all caps, it indicates God's name -- Yahweh. When you see lord in lower case, that is a term meaning the following: a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.

This totally destroys my trust in this eBook now. What else is wrong could be wrong? I personally think the Bible is very important and seeing this confusion in the text is a terrible thing.

I am going to contact All4Fun (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/member.php?u=31889) and see if his NIV Bible straight from the publisher has this problem also. Ugh.

With all that said, does anyone have any advice on where I can get a usable NIV bible that doesn't have the problem that this Sony edition has?

Guns4Hire
03-01-2010, 12:27 AM
I have been on the look out for a nice NIV study bible eBook as well. But I have had no luck.

carlobee
03-01-2010, 02:26 AM
I agree. That should not be. Thanks for making us aware of that too.

Me too here. Still finding a good NIV Bible.

pdurrant
03-01-2010, 05:07 AM
That's a very serious problem with the text. I'd ask Sony for a refund.

AlexBell
03-01-2010, 05:38 AM
That's a very serious problem with the text. I'd ask Sony for a refund.

It's not Sony's fault. The error is in the original Zondervan mobipocket version - if I remember rightly I bought mine directly from Zondervan.

We should let Zondervan know directly. The error is not found in my wife's large print version.

Regards, Alex

bakura82
03-01-2010, 09:18 AM
It's not Sony's fault. The error is in the original Zondervan mobipocket version - if I remember rightly I bought mine directly from Zondervan.

We should let Zondervan know directly. The error is not found in my wife's large print version.

Regards, Alex
Are you able to verify for me that the problem is in fact in the Zondervan version? I am already talking to Sony, but I have to go through some hoops first. I am going to recommend that they remove the product because for anyone who cares about the accuracy of the text (I would assume most every Bible reader), then they shouldn't sell this. After that, I am going to contact Zondervan. I wonder if the B&N version has this problem too. If I recall right, they all have different ISBN's...

bakura82
03-01-2010, 11:24 AM
So, I contacted Sony this morning. They claim that they will refund me. I also asked them to take the book down for now, but I don't think they will, which is sad.

I have also contacted Zondervan to let them know. Who knows what's going to happen there.

I think I will leave a warning review on the Sony store later (when I am not connected to the net via VPN/Proxy... apparently the Reader Library doesn't like that).

All4Fun
03-01-2010, 08:44 PM
Sorry Bakura82 for only responding now...

Yes, my epub version of the NIV Bible directly from Zondervan has the same error with lord in ALL CAPS.

bakura82
03-01-2010, 10:17 PM
Sorry Bakura82 for only responding now...

Yes, my epub version of the NIV Bible directly from Zondervan has the same error with lord in ALL CAPS.
No problem. Once I get I actually get a reply, I will let them know that it is in their version too. Not cool, but stuff happens...

DaleDe
03-02-2010, 01:38 PM
No problem. Once I get I actually get a reply, I will let them know that it is in their version too. Not cool, but stuff happens...

It is common to have Lord in small-caps when it refers to deity. Perhaps that is what they are doing and the ePUB rendering engine is not honoring it.

Dale

KNotTed
03-02-2010, 01:57 PM
Except the issue here is that it is not referring to the deity, but to, e.g. someone's superior.

DaleDe
03-02-2010, 02:30 PM
Except the issue here is that it is not referring to the deity, but to, e.g. someone's superior.

Sounds like someone must have gotten carried away with the use of the caps. That is certainly not how it is defined in the translators preface.

Dale

AlexBell
03-07-2010, 03:48 AM
Anyone had any success with emailing Zondervan about this problem? I'm just getting a runaround about them needing more information - ISBN etc.

Regards, Alex

bakura82
03-07-2010, 10:59 AM
I have only recieved the following from Zondervan when I brought it up:
I apologize for your disappointment with your NIV bible download.

In our continuing effort to produce quality eBooks and Bible eBooks, we are working on an improved version of the NIV text the eBook format. However, this is an unfortunate error with the font and the download file is in the process of being corrected.

Thank you for contacting Zondervan,
Melissa

I wrote again asking them to remove it from their site for now, resubmit the new version to their distributors, and reissue the new file to anyone who already purchased it. No response though. :/

As for Sony, they refunded me my money, which is good. However, they have yet to respond to the same requests I sent Zondervan. Not only that, I review the book in the Sony store and put a warning to all users, but Sony screens them and has yet to post it.

I am pretty frustrated by this. It's one thing if the book was fiction. However, a lot of people base their life off of this book. It's a little more important than fiction. I wish they would just do this right.

I have absolutely no word on when the corrections will actually be made.

AlexBell
03-08-2010, 02:09 AM
Thanks, Bakura82. You got a better response than I did, but as you say there is no indication as to when the error will be corrected.

Regards, Alex

HarryT
03-08-2010, 03:08 AM
Don't you think that removing it from the site would be a little drastic. How many people really care whether a word is spelled "LORD" or "Lord", do you think?

charleski
03-08-2010, 04:39 AM
Don't you think that removing it from the site would be a little drastic. How many people really care whether a word is spelled "LORD" or "Lord", do you think?
Wars have been fought over less.

bakura82
03-08-2010, 08:49 AM
Don't you think that removing it from the site would be a little drastic. How many people really care whether a word is spelled "LORD" or "Lord", do you think?
Actually, it's "LORD" versus "lord." If it said, "Lord," it would still refer to God at least. In this case, it shouldn't at all.

Honestly, if one verse is tarnished, one can assume that other versus may be messed up as well. As I said, many people have lived their lives based off this book for thousands of years.

Wars have been fought over less.
I hope not. :(

HarryT
03-08-2010, 09:36 AM
Honestly, if one verse is tarnished, one can assume that other versus may be messed up as well. As I said, many people have lived their lives based off this book for thousands of years.


It's probably something no more serious than missing a small-caps font out of the ePub file. Dismissing the whole thing just because of the capitalisation of a word just seems a little drastic to me. If someone is that fussed about truly accurate text, aren't they going to be reading the original, anyway, rather than a translation? After all, any translation is losing a heck of a lot more than (no disrespect intended) something as minor as this. I know that when I read the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, I'm amazed by the "liberties" that many translations take with what it really says!

kwjones
03-08-2010, 09:49 AM
It's probably something no more serious than missing a small-caps font out of the ePub file. Dismissing the whole thing just because of the capitalisation of a word just seems a little drastic to me. If someone is that fussed about truly accurate text, aren't they going to be reading the original, anyway, rather than a translation? After all, any translation is losing a heck of a lot more than (no disrespect intended) something as minor as this. I know that when I read the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, I'm amazed by the "liberties" that many translations take with what it really says!

It's NIV...not quite a "thought for thought" paraphrase, but a midle of the road(dymanic equivalence) translation. It's designed to be easily read and understood. Anyone interested in serious word study is going to be using a "word for word" translation like ESV, NASB, etc.

bakura82
03-08-2010, 09:51 AM
It's probably something no more serious than missing a small-caps font out of the ePub file. Dismissing the whole thing just because of the capitalisation of a word just seems a little drastic to me. If someone is that fussed about truly accurate text, aren't they going to be reading the original, anyway, rather than a translation? After all, any translation is losing a heck of a lot more than (no disrespect intended) something as minor as this. I know that when I read the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, I'm amazed by the "liberties" that many translations take with what it really says!
Thanks for you opinion. Risking sounding like a broken record though, there are people who genuinly care about the accuracy of translations especially since there are laymen that will never learn Koine, Aramaic, or Hebrew to any degree. This is much more complicated than you make it out to be especially since no "original" texts have been found yet. I personally spend a lot of time in the manuscripts available, but most people don't. However, for casual reading, even people like me generally don't refer to the manuscripts. There is always a high degree of trust put into the work of the scholars that complied such modern translations. Some people feel that differentiating between Lord (Adonai/God), LORD(Yahweh/his name), and lord (a person in authority/not God) is important and I am one of them.

I would love to discuss the textual criticism process that takes place for modern translations, but I don't think this is the thread for that. As drastic as it may sound, taking down the book or at least warning potential buyers that the book is flawed is actually something most followers of the Bible would appreciate.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

cmdahler
03-08-2010, 10:21 AM
It's probably something no more serious than missing a small-caps font out of the ePub file. Dismissing the whole thing just because of the capitalisation of a word just seems a little drastic to me. If someone is that fussed about truly accurate text, aren't they going to be reading the original, anyway, rather than a translation? After all, any translation is losing a heck of a lot more than (no disrespect intended) something as minor as this. I know that when I read the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, I'm amazed by the "liberties" that many translations take with what it really says!

Being a bit lax in formatting with Dan Brown is one thing. It's generally not going to sit well with a whole lot of people when errors appear in a spiritually authoritative religious text such as the Bible or the Koran. Zondervan should have known better and should have gone through this text with the same fine-toothed comb they use for their print version of the Bible instead of just slapping this together and rushing it to market. It may not sound very important to you, but it is going to be vastly important to a lot of people. Especially when you mess around with the holy name of God in the text, which these caps and small caps are traditionally the only way of differentiating in English translations, this is going to be seen as a pretty egregious error, not something that should have been missed. It's going to appear to many as bordering on blasphemous. Jewish priests copying the text of these verses over hundreds of years went through elaborate cleansing rituals before writing this name YHWH and had rules such as even if a king were to enter the room and address the priest, the priest could not acknowledge the king's presence until he had finished writing the divine name. In contrast, Zondervan rushed this version out to market as though they didn't even care enough to take the time to ensure there was an appropriate and correct differentiation between the English small caps representation of God's name and the merely common word Lord. Lots of egg on Zondervan's face for this error, and rightly so.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 10:55 AM
It's NIV...not quite a "thought for thought" paraphrase, but a midle of the road(dymanic equivalence) translation. It's designed to be easily read and understood. Anyone interested in serious word study is going to be using a "word for word" translation like ESV, NASB, etc.

Precisely. That's my point. Given the fact that the NIV is NOT intended to be a literal translation of the Hebrew/Greek, is an error of this type really going to upset people? As you rightly say, people who care about textual precision are probably not going to be reading the NIV!

HarryT
03-08-2010, 10:59 AM
I would love to discuss the textual criticism process that takes place for modern translations, but I don't think this is the thread for that. As drastic as it may sound, taking down the book or at least warning potential buyers that the book is flawed is actually something most followers of the Bible would appreciate.


I agree with you that it would be appropriate to point out the flaw, so that those people who may be bothered by such things can buy a different edition.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 11:04 AM
Actually, it's "LORD" versus "lord." If it said, "Lord," it would still refer to God at least. In this case, it shouldn't at all.


Have you looked at the ePub source to see if there is a style applied which might indicate a CSS problem or a missing font?

DaleDe
03-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Have you looked at the ePub source to see if there is a style applied which might indicate a CSS problem or a missing font?

this is a copyrighted and DRM protected book.

Dale

HarryT
03-08-2010, 11:19 AM
this is a copyrighted and DRM protected book.

Dale

Yes, I'm well aware of that, Dale. This is, however, a forum for discussing the "inards" of ePub files, and it would be instructive to know whether the issue is caused by a problem with the actual text of the book (which may indicate a significant problem for the publisher) or whether it's simply a display issue resulting from the production of the ePub file (eg a style problem) which could be trivially fixed.

DaleDe
03-08-2010, 11:42 AM
Yes, I'm well aware of that, Dale. This is, however, a forum for discussing the "inards" of ePub files, and it would be instructive to know whether the issue is caused by a problem with the actual text of the book (which may indicate a significant problem for the publisher) or whether it's simply a display issue resulting from the production of the ePub file (eg a style problem) which could be trivially fixed.

Yes, it is but I would not suggest that this is an instance of fair use to break the DRM just so we can discuss it. The publisher has already acknowledged that the problem exists and will hopefully correct it soon. I originally thought it might be a CSS or font problem but when I raised the question people indicated it was also on regular usage of the term lord with referring to regular persons, not diety, and would thus rule out the CSS/font as being the problem.

cmdahler
03-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Precisely. That's my point. Given the fact that the NIV is NOT intended to be a literal translation of the Hebrew/Greek, is an error of this type really going to upset people? As you rightly say, people who care about textual precision are probably not going to be reading the NIV!

Actually, the NIV is intended to be a translation, not a paraphrase. Obvioulsy, the translators placed emphasis on easy readability in modern English, and that does differentiate the NIV from more "literal" translations that place no emphasis on readability. Further, as you are obviously well aware, it is quite impossible to translate any language into another "word for word." Consequently, the differences between the "literal" translations and other translations such as the NIV entirely come down to word and phrasing choices of the individual translators. One version is not any better or more "literal" than another.

Anyway, as a translation versus a paraphrase, the NIV is billed as an authoritative reference point for anyone studying the Bible in English who lacks the ability to read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. As such, the publishers better get their details right.

Harry, you're flying off on a tangent and missing the entire point behind why people would get upset over this formatting issue. This is simply not the same as finding a punctuation error in The Count of Monte Cristo. This is the Bible, and even if it doesn't mean much to you, it is vastly important to many others on a scale which you obviously aren't comprehending very well. Zondervan missing something like this in their epub shows a disregard for basic RESPECT: respect for their readers and a respect toward God whom they say they are trying to serve in the publication of this text. I'm sure you didn't understand the ire of the Muslim community in Finland over those cartoons, either, but the expectation and demand by deeply religious people toward God is real and not something to be taken lightly. Throwing this epub text out there without taking the time to proofread it and catch such basic errors is incredibly disrespectful toward both God and the readers of the text. Zondervan absolutely should remove this text from sale until these errors are fixed, and in fact should send an apology to the readers who bought this text to begin with. I've never been very impressed with Zondervan as a corporation, so I doubt they'll do that.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 12:05 PM
Harry, you're flying off on a tangent and missing the entire point behind why people would get upset over this formatting issue. This is simply not the same as finding a punctuation error in The Count of Monte Cristo. This is the Bible, and even if it doesn't mean much to you, it is vastly important to many others on a scale which you obviously aren't comprehending very well. Zondervan missing something like this in their epub shows a disregard for basic RESPECT: respect for their readers and a respect toward God whom they say they are trying to serve in the publication of this text. I'm sure you didn't understand the ire of the Muslim community in Finland over those cartoons, either, but the expectation and demand by deeply religious people toward God is real and not something to be taken lightly. Throwing this epub text out there without taking the time to proofread it and catch such basic errors is incredibly disrespectful toward both God and the readers of the text. Zondervan absolutely should remove this text from sale until these errors are fixed, and in fact should send an apology to the readers who bought this text to begin with. I've never been very impressed with Zondervan as a corporation, so I doubt they'll do that.

Nope. I understand exactly what you're saying, but this is the peril of relying upon a translation for religious study. That's precisely why the Koran can be studied in translation as a text, but for religious use, only the classical Arabic version is permitted to be used. Nobody would dream of using a translated Koran for religious devotion for the very reason you cite - it would be disrespectful to God.

DaleDe
03-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Certainly NIV is a translation. It is my preferred reading format but not my preferred study format. I personally use several versions to study and understand the truth in scripture in lieu of trying to learn the source language the way it was written thousands of years ago. Even knowing this modern versions of the source language isn't enough so I depend on professionals and the multiplicity of versions with guidance from the Holy Spirit to get at the truth. YMMV.

Dale

bakura82
03-08-2010, 12:20 PM
Harry, I won't be stripping the DRM to analyze the text. Besides the legal issues involved, I don't find it necessary since the publisher has acknowledged it.

As for everything else being discussed, I would rather not address it since the thread has been hijacked enough. While everyone's opinions are appreciated, they are not really relevant in this case. The fact is, many people DO treat this text as authoritative. Whether they should or shouldn't do so it quite irrelevant in this thread.

I am glad you agree with the warning, but like cmdahler indicated, I doubt Zondervan will do that. The fact is, their priority as a publisher isn't necessarily always "Biblical" -- they are a business entity and that's their primary focus. It's pretty frustrating IMO too. Sony won't even post my review of the book, which serves as a warning to future buyers. THAT is even MORE frustrating.

cmdahler
03-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Nope. I understand exactly what you're saying, but this is the peril of relying upon a translation for religious study. That's precisely why the Koran can be studied in translation as a text, but for religious use, only the classical Arabic version is permitted to be used. Nobody would dream of using a translated Koran for religious devotion for the very reason you cite - it would be disrespectful to God.

That's all well and good, but can you imagine the response in the Islamic community if an ebook Arabic version of the Koran were published with an error or two in the text, even something you personally would consider a minor font issue? Don't you imagine that the publisher would take a lot of time to ensure such errors didn't exist before making it available? For that matter, can you imagine the initial response to Zondervan if they had made basic formatting errors like this in the print publication of the NIV? It would have forever tarnished their reputation and likely would have meant the NIV would have had a long, uphill struggle to become the widely accepted version that it is.

I understand what you are saying about a truely devotional, authoritative scholarly study of the text of the Bible needing to be done in the original Hebrew and Greek. But amongst the Christian community, as opposed to your example of Islam, using an English translated text has long been acceptable for personal devotional study. Even so, you will not find very many Christians attempting to devotionally study the Bible using a paraphrased version such as "The Living Bible". If an original language study is impractical for the average person, a direct translation as opposed to a paraphrase is clearly the next best thing. I seriously doubt, for example, that every single Muslim in the world is capable of reading Arabic, yet they manage to be devotional and strongly religious just the same.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 12:48 PM
That's all well and good, but can you imagine the response in the Islamic community if an ebook Arabic version of the Koran were published with an error or two in the text, even something you personally would consider a minor font issue? Don't you imagine that the publisher would take a lot of time to ensure such errors didn't exist before making it available?

Please understand that I am not denigrating your very evident concern over this. What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative? Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way? I don't read Hebrew, only Greek, and the matter doesn't arise in Greek because the word for "God" used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament is just "theos", which is an ordinary everyday word, and exactly the same word you'd use if you were talking about one of the "classical" gods.

The situation with the Koran, where there's just one accepted text, is very different. It's either right or it's wrong.

I seriously doubt, for example, that every single Muslim in the world is capable of reading Arabic, yet they manage to be devotional and strongly religious just the same.

Mosques all over the world teach children to read the Koran in Arabic, just as the more traditional branches of Judaism teach children to read the Bible in Hebrew, regardless of their everyday spoken language. It's just the way that the thing is done.

kwjones
03-08-2010, 01:16 PM
Certainly NIV is a translation. It is my preferred reading format but not my preferred study format. I personally use several versions to study and understand the truth in scripture in lieu of trying to learn the source language the way it was written thousands of years ago. Even knowing this modern versions of the source language isn't enough so I depend on professionals and the multiplicity of versions with guidance from the Holy Spirit to get at the truth. YMMV.

Dale

Yup. I actually perfer the internet for studying. With places like NET Bible (http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm) and Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/) or Pocket E-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net/pocketpc/) it's pretty easy to compare text between multiple translations and have access to multiple commentaries, concordance and encyclopedias all at once.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 01:24 PM
Yup. I actually perfer the internet for studying. With places like NET Bible (http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm) and Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/) or Pocket E-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net/pocketpc/) it's pretty easy to compare text between multiple translations and have access to multiple commentaries, concordance and encyclopedias all at once.

I wish that Olive Tree would release their superb range of Bible study tools in eBook formats. Using their software is one of the main reasons that I still keep my Pocket PC alive and kicking.

DaleDe
03-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Please understand that I am not denigrating your very evident concern over this. What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative? Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way? I don't read Hebrew, only Greek, and the matter doesn't arise in Greek because the word for "God" used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament is just "theos", which is an ordinary everyday word, and exactly the same word you'd use if you were talking about one of the "classical" gods.


Actually the typographical convention for LORD is used in almost all modern translations. It is the expected norm to refer to the different Hebrew words for God.

There are two major methods used in translations: Maintain to the extent possible the exact source language converted into English and Maintain to the extent possible the exact meaning in the target language.

The first results in a stilted and difficult to read translation that doesn't flow but is good for study when you don't know the source language. The word order is rearranged to match the target language. There are even Interlinear versions that translate only the words without rearranging the word order at all. There is still some interpretation used because a single word in the source language can be translated using different words in the target language and sometimes the target language has no such word.

The second results in a better flow but understanding the thought requires more interpretation of the source. However if you were translating a manual that you expected someone to follow to fix an airplane you would certainly want this method of translation. It is certainly much plainer and easier to read.

Are both authoritative? None are inspired and contrary to some beliefs the Bible wasn't originally written in the KJV. Languages change over time and the various versions sometimes reflect this difference in that they themselves reflect the language when they were translated. There are proponents of both translation methods and the idea of paraphrasing to get the meaning has dropped out of favor. Even the New Living Bible has been changed to a translation. If you compare the various versions you will find that they all say almost exactly the same thing once you allow for word changes and style. All the major doctrinal issues are the same in most versions. It is subtle insight that can vary. Every time I read my Bible I get some new insight out of it. There are some versions intentionally translated with a point of view in mind but I am not talking about those.

Dale

cmdahler
03-08-2010, 02:19 PM
What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative?

Since Christianity and Judaism has been so world-wide widespread for so long, scholars and linguists have naturally devoted so much time to examining the original language in such detail that differences of opinion over the intent of the original amount to only a few pages out of the entire Bible. Because of this, I think it can be reasonably said that virtually all major versions of the English Bible since the King James are really the same - you read one particular passage out of, say, the NASB, and compare that to the same passage in the NIV, and you will not come away with any different underlying meaning in spite of phrasing differences between the two. So all the major translations of the Bible are authoritative in that they all say the same thing; it really just amounts to picking one or two that you happen to like the best because it reads well to you. Studying different versions side by side is far more about just getting a better understanding of the meaning of a particular verse or paragraph because it might read better in one version than another, not because one version is going to say something in a way that differs in the underlying meaning of the passage.

Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way?

Yes, it's common amongst almost all English translations of the Bible.

God = the Hebrew word El, which simply means God.
Lord = the Hebrew word Adonai, a more personalized reference to the Hebrew God.
LORD = YHWH, the personal name of God given by God to Moses:

God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
--Exodus 3:15, NIV

Jellby
03-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Nobody should blindly trust any book to be completely error-free.

charleski
03-08-2010, 03:22 PM
For an example of the furore that can be provoked by changing a word, see "a Bible gone bad is a nuclear attack" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-03-27-bible-changes.htm). I don't agree in any way with the sentiments expressed there, but stuff like '10% voted, "all translations are evil except the King James Version."' is certainly eye-opening. :eek:

Rootman
03-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Not trying to butt in here and don't know if this particular version of NIV is any better but I enjoy reading "The Bible in 90 Days" It's a great program too, really allows things to be linked by reading the entire Bible in such a short time.

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-90-Days-ebook/dp/B001O1O80M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1268080745&sr=1-1

HarryT
03-08-2010, 04:03 PM
Actually the typographical convention for LORD is used in almost all modern translations. It is the expected norm to refer to the different Hebrew words for God.

There are two major methods used in translations: Maintain to the extent possible the exact source language converted into English and Maintain to the extent possible the exact meaning in the target language.

The first results in a stilted and difficult to read translation that doesn't flow but is good for study when you don't know the source language. The word order is rearranged to match the target language. There are even Interlinear versions that translate only the words without rearranging the word order at all. There is still some interpretation used because a single word in the source language can be translated using different words in the target language and sometimes the target language has no such word.

The second results in a better flow but understanding the thought requires more interpretation of the source. However if you were translating a manual that you expected someone to follow to fix an airplane you would certainly want this method of translation. It is certainly much plainer and easier to read.

Are both authoritative? None are inspired and contrary to some beliefs the Bible wasn't originally written in the KJV. Languages change over time and the various versions sometimes reflect this difference in that they themselves reflect the language when they were translated. There are proponents of both translation methods and the idea of paraphrasing to get the meaning has dropped out of favor. Even the New Living Bible has been changed to a translation. If you compare the various versions you will find that they all say almost exactly the same thing once you allow for word changes and style. All the major doctrinal issues are the same in most versions. It is subtle insight that can vary. Every time I read my Bible I get some new insight out of it. There are some versions intentionally translated with a point of view in mind but I am not talking about those.

Dale

Most interesting - thank you, Dale. I had to laugh at your comment about people believing that the KJV was the "original" version of the Bible. Are there really people who are unaware of its origins in Hebrew and Greek (with a smattering of Aramaic)?

cmdahler
03-08-2010, 05:18 PM
Most interesting - thank you, Dale. I had to laugh at your comment about people believing that the KJV was the "original" version of the Bible. Are there really people who are unaware of its origins in Hebrew and Greek (with a smattering of Aramaic)?

There may be a few very simple folk who believe that, but that would be pretty rare. What you'll find more than that are people who believe the KJV is the "inspired" English translation and as such is the only true and right one. For what reasons I don't know - I've never bothered to take the time to find out. The only thing I'll say is that just like comparing some passages from, say, the standard Victorian-English translation of The Count of Monte Cristo with a more updated modern English translation, the modern language may be easier to understand at first reading, but a lot of the poetic prose that flows so beautifully in that antiquated English is lost. For the most part, the NIV is just about the most readable modern English translation available; but there are some passages in the KJV that just can't be beat simply for the beauty of the way they sound.

DaleDe
03-08-2010, 07:27 PM
There may be a few very simple folk who believe that, but that would be pretty rare. What you'll find more than that are people who believe the KJV is the "inspired" English translation and as such is the only true and right one. For what reasons I don't know - I've never bothered to take the time to find out. The only thing I'll say is that just like comparing some passages from, say, the standard Victorian-English translation of The Count of Monte Cristo with a more updated modern English translation, the modern language may be easier to understand at first reading, but a lot of the poetic prose that flows so beautifully in that antiquated English is lost. For the most part, the NIV is just about the most readable modern English translation available; but there are some passages in the KJV that just can't be beat simply for the beauty of the way they sound.

Yea, that is why I put "original" in quotes.

Dale

bakura82
03-13-2010, 10:04 AM
My review on the Sony website finally went up which I am happy about. At least some people might get the warning. Look at another review from two days after me:

(1 star out of 5) Missing content
Posted March 04, 2010 by WJM, Park Forest

I found several chapters of missing content in the psalms and Jeremiah, with no resolution from Sony since my original complaint in January 7th. I would hold off on this until they get this resolved.


I looked at Jeremiah and did not notice the missing chapters. Maybe he meant that the links don't work. I didn't bother with Psalms though. Too big.

Illinifan
03-18-2010, 08:37 PM
<new guy jumping in with both feet>

This is a big deal. Unfortunately, English does not have the depth and breath of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The conventions used to translate the Scripture into English have become very standard over the years.

I went and checked my YouVersion iPod touch app which links to an online version of the NIV and it is correct.

I have been considering downloading one of the stand alone NIV apps. Does anyone have any experience with them and can you verify whether or not this issue shows up in any or all of them?

bakura82
03-18-2010, 08:45 PM
<new guy jumping in with both feet>

This is a big deal. Unfortunately, English does not have the depth and breath of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The conventions used to translate the Scripture into English have become very standard over the years.

I went and checked my YouVersion iPod touch app which links to an online version of the NIV and it is correct.

I have been considering downloading one of the stand alone NIV apps. Does anyone have any experience with them and can you verify whether or not this issue shows up in any or all of them?
When it come to online versions of the NIV bible, it seems to be in good shape. I have never come across a problem with biblegateway, crosswalk, and etc.

I am not familiar with ipod apps. I am not sure you will be able to check out the source easily, but I would try. Right now, this seems to just be an ebook issue. From what I can tell, their text parser just didn't get it right. Simple fix if that's all it is. No idea where the app would get the NIV bible from though.