And another point: preachers and teachers, whether they like the formal or not, always explain the text in dynamic ways. All of this is connected to purpose of both translator and reader -- which I'll address in another post. (See here)I remember in seminary where a lot of students and profs would read out of the New American Standard Bible (as did a lot of local preachers). Often, however, when they read a passage that seemed particularly wooden, they would explain it in more common, understood language that would almost always echo what the NIV had down. I valued the NASB at the time (especially when comparing my own translation), but I read and taught from the NIV because, to me, it was the most readable translation available.
I still feel that way and I really enjoyed the TNIV as well. Bill Mounce posted some thoughts on the the ESV and the TNIV and he did so in a way that defended his translation of choice (the one he worked on: ESV) but did not denigrate the TNIV.
Let me go on the record as saying I was disappointed to see the death of the TNIV. It was a magnificent and artfully crafted work that consistently held to its translation guidelines. And part of its beauty was that it was not colloquial. It has a beautiful style that transcends many subcultures and one that doesn’t mind ending a few sentences with prepositions. (See here)I like and respect both of these men I they both write really good blogs (and commentaries as well!)