Well look into this more carefully.

Anyway, just to let you know. I do not really trust the NIV.

Yes I am considering.

The cheras one is a youth church, not really my church, i attended as a youth. But that church really give me the hibby jivies. I know I am not suppose to judge but when it comes to knowing which church i should go to, i think i have a right to say that cheras church which is near to tesco, is a very bad church.

Yeah you are right to say that the church is our spiritual family and submission to authority is one aspect that i have difficulty to follow. I try my best but really when there's no compassion and kindness from the fellow members, I don't think the church is right for me. That was the cheras church.

The current church is not perfect, I have been there for 8 years. This mega church at least still ok ok. If I offended some members, I at least can make new friends. But recently I made a big mistake when i shared some personal stuff with a bald head cg leader. When I found out that he slandered other cg leader and members of his own cg, I had a hunch he is going to say some nasty stuff about me based on my sharing.

I still attend the cell but in the long run, I am not sure to remain there.

Very hard to think off hand.

I did discuss one passage with another person proverbs something cannot remember
and find the reason why we are in disagreement is because the passage from KJV and NIV was totally different.

I compared that NIV passage with the other versions and it's totally different.

Well since I do not know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic,
I have to then rely on accurate translation.

I think it is well documented that NIV is not accurate.

KJV is not the most accurate but then generally it is more reliable.
Basically in NIV, you can find passages whereby the entire meaning actually changes, that is how inaccurate it is.

Luke 2:49
"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

I oso don't know greek, hebrew, aramaic... so i can relate to your concern...

now to added our concern / fear / awareness    .... did you know that
actually there no Father's house at the end. The translator added that house because the translator "is trying to help the reader" about the whole context. What whole LOL ...

it should be:
"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father"

In my Father and in my father's house are two different things lahh... c'mon translator. thx for your help but no thanks. next time just leave it as is.

I want to encourage you guys to read the chapter 2 of this book - http://stockholmlife.se/wp-content/uploads...d_The_Bible.pdf

I feel that the author wrote it pretty well about this translation thing. Actually is it not easy to be a translator. It is a collaborative effort of many scholars and they are  unbias towards any denomination

Nope.
The more translator the worse.
Actually they can be biased because they now have to create a bible that everyone "agrees"

Somehow word for word is the best. But even then, the translator must not be biased at all. Because even when interpretating word for word, the translator can still misinterpret certain words which may change the whole meaning.

The writer was not refering to NIV.  He was refering to RSV.
Anyway its good to compare the different versions and try to understand the language outlook on the verse.
That was what the writer was writing on.

He did compare with NIV also based on the article you sent.

Would not think so.

For example, for (thought for though) bibles like NIV or NLT. It's practically useless.

If we are serious about this, then we should look at the original text.
There are certain text that are known to be more reliable for example TR etc.
Also there is the integrity and biasness of the author.
There's normally a discussion saying which part of the bible is misinterpretated wrongly etc.

For example in KJV
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

NKJV
2 even the righteousness of God, through faith of Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference;

NIV
This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
Just the difference of "of" and "in"

The whole meaning has been twisted.

So that is why, to me NIV is practically not encouraged.

Even NKJV which claims to translate KJV to a more readable English is also suspect because if you look at the above. It does not really do what it claims to do.

As mentioned earlier, I have observed actual entire passages from NIV that are totally different from the rest of the other versions.

There are some bibles out there that are pretty reliable in translation
YLT, Geneva, KJV  etc. And perheps concordance.

Have you read that chapter 2?

A literal interpretation is always much better then a not so literal interpretation like the NIV.

The reason is very clear. You are reading the Word of God. Not man's interpretation of the word of god.

After reading the first page which says that KJV is too literal, I dun think I would want to read the rest.

The best translational theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source; it will give you confidence as to what the Greek or Hebrew actually looked like. A free translation also can be helpful—to stimulate your thinking about the possible meaning of a text. But the basic translation for reading and studying should be something like the NIV.

The problem with a literal translation is that it keeps distance at the wrong places—in language and grammar. Thus the translator often
renders the Greek or Hebrew into English that is otherwise never written or spoken that way. It is like translating maison blanc from French
to English as “house white.” For example, no native English-speaking person would ever have said “coals of fire” (KJV, Rom. 12:20). That
is a literal rendering of the Greek construction, but what it means in English is “burning coals” (NIV) or “live coals” (NEB).

A second problem with a literal translation is that it often makes the English ambiguous, where the Greek or Hebrew was quite clear
to the original recipients. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:16 the Greek phrase kata sarka can be translated literally “(to know)
according to the flesh” (as in the NASB). But this is not an ordinary way of speaking in English. Furthermore the phrase is ambiguous.
Is it the person who is being known who is “according to the flesh,” which seems to be implied in the NASB, and which in this case
would mean something like “by their outward appearance”? Or is the person who is “knowing” doing so “according to the flesh,”
which would mean “from a worldly point of view”? In this case the Greek is clear, and the NIV correctly translates: “So from now on
[since we have been raised to a new life, v. 15] we regard no one from a worldly point of view.”

So fast close up already?

Anyway, I think there is no perfect translation la as each has its own plus and minus. As the author suggested, it is use a primary translation and use few others good one for reference when unsure of the point or meaning.

Just wondering, don't you find it hard to read or understand KJV with those old obsolete English?

----
Translation :

Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible
to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still
make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep
the historical distance intact at all points.

Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to
another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original.
A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to
eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.

Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and
grammatical constructions of the original language into precise
equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but
“updates” matters of language, grammar, and style.

Translational Theory  :

Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible
to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still
make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep
the historical distance intact at all points.

Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to
another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original.
A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to
eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.

Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and
grammatical constructions of the original language into precise
equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but
“updates” matters of language, grammar, and style.

----

sorry, to avoid miscommunication, what i try to say:

After HE died in the cross for all of us + sending holy spirit later on. imho .. I think it is just too much to ask Jesus to translate bible...

but maybe i were wrong 5 minutes ago, consider how humble our LORD Jesus Christ is .. perhaps if somebody ask Jesus to do something like Nuzulul Quran, that is, a divine translation fresh from heaven from any language to any language.. maybe HE will acknowledge ?

Anybody wanna start begging to Abba Father about divine translation to English ? so our colleague sylar111 can have little bit peace

So fast close up already?

Anyway, I think there is no perfect translation la as each has its own plus and minus. As the author suggested, it is use a primary translation and use few others good one for reference when unsure of the point or meaning.

Just wondering, don't you find it hard to read or understand KJV with those old obsolete English?

----
Translational Theory  :

Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible
to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still
make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep
the historical distance intact at all points.

Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to
another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original.
A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to
eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.

Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and
grammatical constructions of the original language into precise
equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but
“updates” matters of language, grammar, and style.

----

yeah, yeah, the bald guy right? u mentioned b4.

i'm so sori to hear tat u r unhappy @ ur church  .

*snip*

I don;t know how to talk to you, because you keep on imaginating me as one other person.

*snip*

*snip*

The current church is not perfect, I have been there for 8 years. This mega church at least still ok ok. If I offended some members, I at least can make new friends. But recently I made a big mistake when i shared some personal stuff with a bald head cg leader. When I found out that he slandered other cg leader and members of his own cg, I had a hunch he is going to say some nasty stuff about me based on my sharing.

I still attend the cell but in the long run, I am not sure to remain there.

It is not about the perfect translation. It's translating with integrity. Having the heart to translate the word of God as accurate as possible without adding the own meaning in so as not to taint the Word of God.

Well, reading the Bible is not the same as Reading a story book or a text book. You are talking about the Word of God here. And you want to make sure that what you read is not distorted. Even though it's harder to read the KJV. I sleep better knowing that what I read has not been distorted.

I really do not know how you can consider Dynamic Equivalent acceptable. I just shown you that just changing the grammer even 'of' with 'in' will distort the whole meaning away. Unless you want to just have a casual understanding of what you read and accept other people's opinion instead of the actual words of God then be it.

When I told you that NIV has certain section in it that is totally different from the other versions, I wasn't joking.

Even seminary students do not take NIV seriously. Taking NIV as a study material is an embarassment. And I am talking about seminary students who do are not so serious about the Word of God. So obviously, the words of this author cannot be taken seriously.

But since to you NIV is the acceptable version, then nothing I say will change your mind. You can read from man's interpretation of God's word.

He did compare with NIV also based on the article you sent.

Would not think so.

For example, for (thought for though) bibles like NIV or NLT. It's practically useless.

If we are serious about this, then we should look at the original text.
There are certain text that are known to be more reliable for example TR etc.
Also there is the integrity and biasness of the author.
There's normally a discussion saying which part of the bible is misinterpretated wrongly etc.

For example in KJV
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

NKJV
2 even the righteousness of God, through faith of Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference;

NIV
This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
Just the difference of "of" and "in"

The whole meaning has been twisted.

So that is why, to me NIV is practically not encouraged.

Even NKJV which claims to translate KJV to a more readable English is also suspect because if you look at the above. It does not really do what it claims to do.

As mentioned earlier, I have observed actual entire passages from NIV that are totally different from the rest of the other versions.

There are some bibles out there that are pretty reliable in translation
YLT, Geneva, KJV  etc. And perheps concordance.