NIV - Will wonders never cease?

[Manfred]

Good and Gentle People,

I came across this interesting article on the theory of biblical translation written by T. David Gordon, a Protestant professor of religion and Greek. The link for the full article is here:

bible-researcher.com/gordon.html

I’ve excerpted that part which got my attention.

"The NIV should not be used from the pulpit, in my judgment, because it is a sectarian translation. It is a self-confessedly “evangelical” translation, which excluded non-evangelicals from the translation process. It is therefore ecclesiastically unacceptable (it excludes from the outset people who don’t call themselves “evangelical,” just as the Kingdom Translation excludes people who don’t call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses). In fact, even for study purposes, one will have to be cautious about the evangelical bias reflected in this translation, whereby the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of evangelicalism have not been offset by a more “inclusive” committee.

“Specifically, the NIV shows many signs of being individualistic, experientialist, and revivalistic (I am speaking about the NIV New Testament; I haven’t evaluated the NIV Old Testament thoroughly yet). At the same time, the NIV ought to be in the minister’s study because it is a good illustration of the demands of a dynamic equivalence translation, and it is also very successful at many points. The RSV, reflecting the breadth of the church, a high style of English, and a reasonably accurate representation of the original text, is perhaps the preferred text for pulpit use.”

 

[Sabda]

I have read some sites by Protestants(who stated they were biblical scholars or at least were very interested in the different translations) who said that the NIV was NOT a good translation. In fact, interestingly enough, one of the problems they saw with the NIV was the fact it did not translate the word paradosis correctly. They stated they did not like the fact that the NIV used the word traditions in a negative light and switched it to teaching when traditions was seen in a postive light.

I suspect that in a few years (who knows how many) there will be a cry for a more accurate translation and most Protestants will end up abandoning the NIV.

Here is what the site you linked has to say about the NIV.

bible-researcher.com/tniv.html

 

[Manfred]

I have read some sites by Protestants(who stated they were biblical scholars or at least were very interested in the different translations) who said that the NIV was NOT a good translation. In fact, interestingly enough, one of the problems they saw with the NIV was the fact it did not translate the word paradosis correctly. They stated they did not like the fact that the NIV used the word traditions in a negative light and switched it to teaching when traditions was seen in a postive light.

I suspect that in a few years (who knows how many) there will be a cry for a more accurate translation and most Protestants will end up abandoning the NIV.

Here is what the site you linked has to say about the NIV.

bible-researcher.com/tniv.html

I think I was just impressed that a Protestant scholar would even consider dissing the highly-vaunted NIV, much less preferring the RSV to it. I know next to nothing about Professor Gordon (liberal? mainstream? evangelical?), but my hat is certainly off to him for making such a statement.

To me, though, the day can’t come fast enough for those who do favor the NIV to wake up and realize what a Non-Inspired Version they’ve been given these many years. Even worse - I understand there’s a Catholic version of the NIV NT only (makes sense; its OT lacks the deuterocanonica), ostensibly for those Catholics who feel this is a “clear, careful, literal” translation worth using. The words in quotes appeared in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Yeah, I would be able to trust the rest of that commentary alright - NOT!

 

[Crumpy]

This discussion is way over my head, for sure.

I looked at a couple parts of Gordon’s essay, and he seems to have missed a couple interesting points.

1. It’s not just author-message-audience that needs to be considered, perhaps. It might be this instead: author1, author2, author3. etc. redactor (editor), translator1, translator 2, or such some combination as the case may be.
2. In my town, the Catholic Churches did not have scripture study, and a lot of Catholics went to the local Christian Reformed church for bible study. At least half of the people who attended were Catholics. I found the NIV Bible, especially in the Study edition, to be a great Bible. It was SO readable and the study notes were excellent.

As I understand, the NIV is a paraphrase translation, or perhaps as you would put it, a dynamic equivalence translation. So, too, the NAB (Catholic Bible) is a paraphrase translation.

I even like to read the KJV, just for comparison, sometimes. And, it is the basis for Strong’s Concordance, which I use a lot.

There are biases in any translation. The Catholic bibles like to translate ekklesia as ‘church’ which is the sense of the word, which I believe some take as ‘assembly’ instead. Clearly, the reference is to the people, not the architectural structure where they meet.

As time goes by, I can’t understand the parochialism in calling the one Catholic bible the “american” bible (“new american bible”). I seem to recall it was authorized by the NCCB of the United States. In light of the fact that it’s time is passing, perhaps it’s good that it had such a silly name, to more quickly consign it to the dusty library shelf. If nothing else, it’s not "new’ any more, either.

Now that I’m fully in stride here, I’ll add my true feeling, that we get shortchanged by not getting the best of all the Bible translations.

At Gethsemane, Jesus says something like “Father let this cup pass from me” but the Catholic version comes up “Father let this chalice pass from me.” Oh, come on. Jesus was speaking symbollically, please. He was not talking about a gold, ornamented artwork.

Or, look at Psalm 90

(NAB) 90:1 * A prayer of Moses, the man of God.
I
Lord, you have been our refuge
through all generations.
90:2 Before the mountains were born,
the earth and the world brought forth,
from eternity to eternity you are God.

Which is rendered in the KJV as

LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The KJV has class and style and beauty, not to mention reverence.

But, see? due to copyrights and all that, we’ll never see these versions blended.

 

[Spirithound]

I found the NIV Bible, especially in the Study edition, to be a great Bible. It was SO readable and the study notes were excellent.
…
At Gethsemane, Jesus says something like “Father let this cup pass from me” but the Catholic version comes up “Father let this chalice pass from me.” Oh, come on. Jesus was speaking symbollically, please. He was not talking about a gold, ornamented artwork.

Or, look at Psalm 90

(NAB)
90:1 Lord, you have been our refuge
through all generations.
90:2 Before the mountains were born,
the earth and the world brought forth,
from eternity to eternity you are God.

Which is rendered in the KJV as

LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The KJV has class and style and beauty, not to mention reverence.

Study notes may be important, depending on your purposes, and they may even be useful, but not if they’re Evangelical. And a readable Bible is not necessarily a great Bible. An accurate translation should be most desirable.

How do you know Jesus wasn’t talking about the golden ornamental cup of salvation? And how do you know that that’s the only use of the word chalice?

As for your other comparison of the psalm, just my opinion, but I have rather little use for poetry. I prefer meaning.

 

[scylla]

Actually chalice seems like a pretty good word for the cup if we look at the Bible as a whole…

1 Corinthians
10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Since we are dealing with Jesus who is God, everything He does is blessed, special and extraordinary so it is not just a cup but a chalice.

In honoring God as divine, Catholics can use chalice without hesitation, this is way different than misrepresenting the Holy Word of God like the NIV does and blaspheming God.

Catholics don’t need a building to be the Body of Christ, that is a common non-catholic canard that misrepresents Catholic belief to attack it. We just believe that truth matters and as such you need a visible unity that evidences a unity of belief in Christ’s truth, a Church.

Girl Scouts can have an assembly and believe whatever they want, Jesus founded a Church and taught truth because it matters what you believe, or else I can believe whatever I want and it really doesn’t matter what Jesus taught.

In Christ,
Scylla

I am not too partial of the New American Bible, I prefer the DRB Challoner’s revised

 

[Contarini]

I think I was just impressed that a Protestant scholar would even consider dissing the highly-vaunted NIV, much less preferring the RSV to it. I know next to nothing about Professor Gordon (liberal? mainstream? evangelical?), but my hat is certainly off to him for making such a statement.

Since the RSV was also a Protestant translation, why are you surprised? Only *some *Protestants like the NIV.

Apparently Prof. Gordon teaches at Grove City (where Scott and Kimberly Hahn went to college, and I think Scott Hahn taught there for a while as well). It appears to be a non-denominational evangelical institution (though given Hahn’s history I think it has a more or less Reformed tinge), and that does make it encouraging that Gordon sees the problems with the NIV.

Evangelicals of a more Wesleyan stamp are more likely to criticize the NIV, and non-evangelical Protestants have no use for it.

I keep criticizing it to my students, for what it’s worth! . . .

I wouldn’t call the NIV a paraphrase, but it’s certainly closer to the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum. It always tries to make things simple, which often means that it picks one meaning where the original is ambiguous. This is OK for some purposes, but for study purposes where the student doesn’t know the original languages it’s very unhelpful IMHO.

Edwin

 

[Brendan]

One of the great problems with the NIV is the anti Catholic translations.

For example, the Greek work ‘paradosis’ - Traditions.

That word is translated in the NIV as “Tradition” whenever it is something to be avoided

Col 2:8 (NIV)

See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

But as ‘Teachings’ when it’s something we are supposed to do.

2 Thes 3:6 (NIV)

6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

So the exact same word is translated in such a way as to make “Traditions” to be something bad and avoided.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I was until quite recently, one who enjoyed (for devotional reading), the New Revised Standard Version (in spite of inclusive language). But then I got to that verse where Paul says that no one knows the things of a man except the spirit that is in the man, you know that verse? Well, the NRSV renders it something like, no one knows what is human except the spirit of the human being. That isn’t even CLOSE to accurate. I finally decided to close the book on my copy of the NRSV and stick with
the 2nd Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version instead for devotional reading.

I’ve never felt one way or another about the NIV. I have a copy of it, but don’t use it. The ****New King James Version is a pretty nice translation, I think.

 

[HEAVY_HAND]

LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The KJV has class and style and beauty, not to mention reverence.

.

I love King James (KJV); it is exact and reverent and clear and concise; but I threw my NIV in the trash can due to what I consider outright heresy.

If you like comparing the KJV with NIV, here are some comaprisons you can do to gain insight in the systematic removal (and omissions and deletions) of doctrinally important Scriptures from NIV. (There are hundreds more)

There is a systematic removal of the word "Christ" from many Scripture verses (about 44 times)

Matt. 23:8 removed - “even Christ” from …“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”)​

Another example:
KJV Gal. 6:15…“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing , nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”

But in (NIV) Gal.6:15 says…".Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation". (Really? you don’t have to be 'In Christ Jesus"??)

This foolish removal of "Christ" and “Christ Jesus” is repeated MANY times in NIV.

Intentionally leaving out the necessity to have faith in Jesus as Christ & as Son of God:…(Appears to deny the Diety of Christ).

Acts 8:36 (KJV) …".what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Phillp said**. If thou believest with all thine heart**, thou mayest. And he answered and said,** I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.**

BUT…Acts 8:36 (NIV) …“Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” ( That’s it; **vs. 37 is completely left out!) **;

I guess that doesn’t matter ?? NOT! :banghead:

---

Many of the deletions changed the meaning of the Scripture:

KJV…Matt. 5:22… “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment”.

(NIV) ‘But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…’
…

CHANGES in words that change the meaning:

Luke 2:33 (KJV) “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.”

Luke 2:33 (NIV) “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.”
This blasphemously implies Jesus had an** earthly father**…
and was done several times in reference to Joseph. :tsktsk:

More?
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! "

In NIV, Lucifer’s name is LEFT OUT COMPLETELY!!
(NIV) “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!” .

Jesus is called the ‘morning star’ in Revelation. How are the uninformed suppose to know its is not referring to Jesus ‘falling from heaven’. ??

These are just the very tip of the iceberg.
There are many, many such alterations that imply the non- masculinity of God…and try to neuter Him throughout Scripture; as well as remove Christ’s Diety in a subtle and watered down way… ("Lord" is removed several hunderd times)

Did you know that mostly due to omssions the NIV has over 64,000 words LESS than the King James? And it is NOT called a ‘paraphrase’; it is called a 'translation".

BTW, NAS and Revised Standard in simiar manner do the SAME thing.

I am amazed that the Baptists (and others) can ignore such outright insults to the Word of God and to Christ’s character.

I think if you do a comparative study you will convince yourself also.

Heavy Hand

 

[Contarini]

I love King James (KJV); it is exact and reverent and clear and concise; but I threw my NIV in the trash can due to what I consider outright heresy.

If you like comparing the KJV with NIV, here are some comaprisons you can do to gain insight in the systematic removal (and omissions and deletions) of doctrinally important Scriptures from NIV. (There are hundreds more)

There is a systematic removal of the word "Christ" from many Scripture verses (about 44 times)

They were following the older manuscripts. I know you KJV folks don’t go by this, but to claim that it was a deliberate attempt to water down Christology is malicious nonsense. It was simply a matter of textual criticism.

The same is true of Joseph vs. “his father.” Ought we to sanction the alteration of Holy Scripture because it might appear to say something heretical? If you have a very strong doctrine of Sacred Tradition, perhaps you could argue that the medieval Byzantine scribe who substituted “Joseph” for “his father” was divinely inspired. I’m open to this possibility. But I doubt you believe this.

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! "

In NIV, Lucifer’s name is LEFT OUT COMPLETELY!!
(NIV) “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!” .

Jesus is called the ‘morning star’ in Revelation. How are the uninformed suppose to know its is not referring to Jesus ‘falling from heaven’. ??

Lucifer is just Latin for “morning star” (literally “light bearer,” but it referred to the morning star). The fact that you don’t know this is all the justification the NIV translation needs. You like the KJV in this instance because it uses a Latin word you don’t understand. When the NIV simply gives the correct modern English equivalent to this word, you get upset, because the NIV is translating accurately.

Did you know that mostly due to omssions the NIV has over 64,000 words LESS than the King James?

I think if you do a comparative study you will convince yourself also.

Is it a coincidence that your examples coincide with those found in a certain great masterpiece of unintentional comedy by one Gail Riplinger? That book convinced me once and for all that the KJV-only argument was sheer lunacy. And I say this even though I love the KJV.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Genesis315]

Pro-evangelical and anti-Catholic?!?..and here I thought the NIV was the product of a conspiracy between the devil, the Pope, and Rupert Murdoch

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/niv.jpg%between%