Pastor Gary:
I think, personally, that you're a little harsh with the version.
I speak in pure objectivity.
The link you provided is a lot more bias than the NIV itself.....
Besides that, PG
:
Kevin:
Try reading this verse with the Darby translation, and you will get the very same result, as it applies to many other versions too, just as the comment found on PG's link.
Over the years, I have read so many so called documentaries about Bible versions, and it comes down to only two things:
1)- The translation of the original Hebrew and Greek has
absolutely nothing to do with the criticism, because it's not how they choose to translate that's the problem, but rather which text they choose for their versions.
Some use the Byzantine, some the Wescott and Hort, some the Alexandrian, some the Scrivener, and some choose others or a mixture of them all.
These versions are not deficiant in their translations, they are deficient in their choice of text. For all the critics, I say: Discuss the original documents instead of bashing your chosen version.
2)- Since all the versions using the text which is deemed deficient are
by default deficient because of it, instead of bashing the accurate translation of the text, why don't they bash the original text instead, since after all, it is where the deficiency lies?????
It seem that they have a dislike for something else, and in that case, as per the link, their target seem to be Zondervand. and they do it with some eloquance too.
So why don't they say it straight?
You will find that as part of my translation, I use
ALL original texts available, and annote the differences
within the text, so that all can see. There is no need in translation to be bias, but to present the reader with all alternatives which are available, so
THEY can make the choice...
Much love.