I'm curious: why does the NIV seem to be one of the most despised or at least divisive translations of all time? I know that the 2011 revision has gone full 'gender-inclusive' language and such, but before that, the 1984 and back versions seemed to be a pretty solid mix of formal and dynamic equivalency for readability, and had verse modifications in line with just about all modern English translations since the late 19th/early 20th century due to being based on earlier manuscripts.

So why does it get so much grief, while, for example, the NLT ,which is even more dynamic to the point of outright paraphrasing at times, seems to not generate much controversy?

>>53
The NLT is largely unused and therefore irrelevant

>>56

Fair enough, though I've been noticing the NLT making more inroads lately. Also, as I've said before, it has verse changes that are similar in nature to other more widely used modern translations, such as the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc. I'm just curious why, even amongst the non KJVO crowd, it's ruffled some feathers even before it's 2011 revision Is it really just a simple matter of: it's dynamic elements + popularity and thus widespread usage?

>>53
It's fine. It was the most popular translation in my experience before the ESV.
NLT is openly a paraphrase.

>>61

>NLT is openly a paraphrase

While The Living Bible, upon which it was based, was openly a paraphrase, the NLT reeled in things quite a bit compared to it's predecessor. While it definitely leans heavily into the dynamic range to the point of being a borderline paraphrase at times, it still maintains formal equivalence elements, and isn't quite as out there as The Living Bible. For example:

Proverbs 20:16 -

>TLB - It is risky to make loans to strangers!

>NLT - Get security from someone who guarantees a stranger’s debt. Get a deposit if he does it for foreigners.