Most Subtle Apologetics Yet...the NIV!

  • Thread starter Thread starter RyanL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you guys realize that some of you are talking about the NIV (New International Version) the original bible mentioned in the first post, and that some of you are talking about the NWT (New World Translation) published by Jehovah’s Witnesses? There is a big difference! NOT the same bible.
 
Hi Catholic4Life Yes, I realize it. Started off with what was said in post #2, then the response in post #3, then I thought I would come in and add in my two bits.

The original post had asked - *Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?

*Yes, there sure is a big difference between the NIV and the NWT!
God bless - A.H.F.
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
This is an accusation made by Trinitarian apologists, but I’ve never seen a serious scholar affirm it. On the contrary, scholars have praised the NWT for its accuracy. You can find this on the Watchtower website.

Of course the NWT is biased; but then, so are all Bible translations, even Catholic ones. No one denies this.
Click to expand...

All translations are flawed & biassed, true - but the NWT is conspicuously bad.​

equip.org/free/DJ520.htm is a page of quotations from some more than competent NT scholars, not least Metzger, Barrett, & Moffatt. They either condemn the NWT rendering of John 1.1, or they explain why the rendering of John 1.1 met with in the NWT is inadequate.

“Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their “a god” translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world’s leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.”

Metzger is, to say the least, no slouch. Barrett likewise 🙂 Moffatt was a translator of the Bible, and one of the consultants for the RSV. One could go on. They are all critical of the NWT.

For example, there is the insertion of the word “other” in Colossians 1.16 - which is without foundation in the witnesses to the text, and seems to be based solely on the doctrinal requirements of JW theology.

Even worse is the reading, over 200 times, of the (artificial) Divine Name “Jehovah”, without one scrap of evidence for such a reading in the witnesses to the text. Not only is “Jehovah” not the Divine Name in the OT - it is nowhere used in the Greek NT. “Lord” in the NT translates “Kurios” - not Adon, Adonai, or anything similar. Nor is the form Iabe = Iave] used in the NT, frequent as it is outside it as a rendering of the Tetragrammaton. ##
 
I was going over old posts today for some reason and I came across this one from RyanL about the NIV and see it is not closed. OK. I’ll add to it.

I had shared some thoughts on this thread concerning the NIV back in 2005. I also had thought of this issue but did not share it at the time so I thought I’d do it now. Why not? It is still a potential issue.

I would also bring to your attention another aspect used by the translators of the New International Version (NIV) that (hopefully inadvertently) distorts Catholic doctrine.

You will also see that whenever the word “tradition” is used in the New Testament in the sense of BAD TRADITION that is condemned by Jesus because it nullifies God’s commandments, or “traditions” of men, the NIV leaves the word “tradition” in the text (Matthew 15 and Mark 7).

BUT! . . . .

Whenever the word “tradition” is used in a GOOD sense (2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 or 1st Corinthians 11:1-2) the NIV changes the EXACT SAME WORD (Greek word paradosis) to “teachings”.

I’m not saying these are inaccurate. But I am saying it is inconsistent and possibly even dishonest depending on the motives (which I will not judge).

You can get the right answer from the footnotes when they are there, but an elementary school kid at Awana or a high-school kid being challenged at a Young Life meeting or a college student at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes gathering or a guy from (back in the day it was called) “Campus Crusade For Christ” hands you an NIV Bible in front of a group and challenges you to “show us ONE PLACE where the Bible teaches ‘tradition’ in a good and positive sense!” he/she may be caught off guard.

NIV
tradition (paradosis) in a BAD sense = “tradition”
tradition (paradosis) in a GOOD sense = “teachings”

Beware!
 
Modern editions of the NIV have corrected the most egregious of these translation biases and restored “traditions” to 1Cor. 11:2.
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. [NIV ©2011]
Click to expand...
The other biased translations remain uncorrected.
 
Thanks DavidFilmer for filling me in on that (modern editions fixing
one of their biased translation verses).

A step in the right direction. I have two NIV Bibles and
unfortunately neither one has that correction.
The other biased translations remain uncorrected.
Click to expand...
That is a shame.
 
Sacramentalist said:
This is an accusation made by Trinitarian apologists, but I’ve never seen a serious scholar affirm it. On the contrary, scholars have praised the NWT for its accuracy. You can find this on the Watchtower website.
Click to expand...
Would you expect anything less from the Watchtower site? If you search the net you can find scholars who have been mis-used by the Watchtower and these scholars speak out. Awhile back I found a scholar on youtube who said that the Watchtower misquoted him. Studies on the NWT are out there if you care enough to search for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top