Peter Gallagher

I was disappointed overall as it has translation at odds with the historic readings of the New Testament both Protestant and Catholic: eg 2 Peter 1:20. The Authorised King James, the NRSV, the Geneva, the Jerusalem, the new American Standard Bible all have this scripture ‘ that no prophecy of scripture admits of private interpretation, whereas the New International Version removes the wording of ‘private interpretation’ and recasts it as the prophet himself is not recording his private interpretation leaving the reader free to apply a private interpretation. A Calvinistic instinct is very obvious in the NIV. Same applies to treatment of the word tradition ( Gk paradosin) translated variously as ‘tradition’ when negative implications apply, yet as ‘teachings’ when positive implications apply. Is ‘tradition’ a word to be avoided? Then Matthew 1:23 is at odds with interpretation of our home Bibles that do not explicitly declare that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus. There are regrettably other eisegesis mistranslations. There are also occasions of more accurate renditions of the Greek eg John 6. I am unfortunately not able to recommend.