Protestant Bias in the NIV

[Randy_Carson]

I’m interested in collecting examples of questionable translation in the New International Version. I’ve got one example…please post others that you are familiar with.

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:

paradosis - tradition
didaskalia - teaching
didachi i - teaching doctrine

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “tradition”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a negative light.

Matthew 15:1-5
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the **tradition paradosis] **of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis]? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis].”

Mark 7:1-13
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition paradosis] of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition paradosis] of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions paradosis] of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions paradosis]! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition paradosis] that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Galatians 1:14
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the tradition paradosis] of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “teaching”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a positive light.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teaching paradosis], just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
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 paradosis] you received from us.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word *“paradosis” *correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, *“paradosis”. *The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

I understand that Protestant Bibles are incomplete (since they are missing seven canonical books), but it appears that at least one of the major Protestant translations is biased, as well!

Can you explain this to me?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

You totally pegged it Randy.

Protestants in the NIV are lying about teaching versus tradition because they can’t stand the concept of tradition in a good light.

Remember that Paul said “To hold fast to the traditions that I have given you.”

Paradosis is Paradosis!

If the people that Paul were writing to did hold fast to those traditions they would be obeying not only Paul’s authority as an apostle and bishop but they would be obeying Sacred Tradtion !

You can’t be sola scriptura then!

That’s the only and real answer why the NIV changed the translation.

That’s also why Catholics must be ever vigilant–not only when using Catholc bibles but especially when using Protestant ones!

 

[Bishopite]

Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word *“paradosis” *correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, *“paradosis”. *The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

I understand that Protestant Bibles are incomplete (since they are missing seven canonical books), but it appears that at least one of the major Protestant translations is biased, as well!

Can you explain this to me?

Good job Randy. :clapping:

Also, Romans 5:1 is another passage that many use to attempt to prove from the NIV, the once saved always saved doctrine.
Romans 5:1 (NIV) "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (NIV)

In a debate between Jimmy Akin and James White, I heard White quote that passage to say that “since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God.” He was saying that our peace with God can’t be broken.

Jimmy Akin replied with this analogy. We have peace right now with Canada, but if one side attacked the other (in our case if we attacked God) that peace would be broken, therefore our peace with God can be broken if WE choose to break it, :ehh:

 

[porthos11]

You totally pegged it Randy.

Protestants in the NIV are lying about teaching versus tradition because they can’t stand the concept of tradition in a good light.

Remember that Paul said “To hold fast to the traditions that I have given you.”

Paradosis is Paradosis!

If the people that Paul were writing to did hold fast to those traditions they would be obeying not only Paul’s authority as an apostle and bishop but they would be obeying Sacred Tradtion !

You can’t be sola scriptura then!

That’s the only and real answer why the NIV changed the translation.

That’s also why Catholics must be ever vigilant–not only when using Catholc bibles but especially when using Protestant ones!

This is correct. Paradosis does not just mean “teaching”, but literally, “that which is handed on”. It implies a long-standing teaching, and therefore implies a succession of sorts. “teaching” weakens this to a short-term or one-time event, losing the force of “paradosis”. “Tradition” is the only acceptable translation here.

When Paul uses “paradosis” it shows that the teaching does not merely originate with him, but that he got it from someone else (Christ and the Apostles), and now he is handing it on to them (the Thessalonians), and implicitly, he expects them to hand it on further down the road.
.

 

[cialovesyou]

Excellent work Randy, you should send a letter to NIV and ask them for their reasons.

 

[HailMary]

NIV is not a bible, by definition, neither is any other protestant translation since it doesn’t contain all the Sacred Books.

 

[Guardian]

Howdy. I noticed the different translation of “paradosis” a long time ago, and it ticked me off to no end.

I actually just wrote a book and along the way have found several disturbing translations in it. I am naming them off the top of my head, but here are two:

1. Any mention of “good works.” Usually the NIV never mentions those two words together and wiggles its way around them. Heaven forbid that we are justified by “good works,” as the Greek states in James 2:24
2. 2 Peter 1:20 - the original Greek doesn’t mention “by the prophet’s own” but simply “by one’s own” or “by one’s own private.” The NIV is trying to deny the secondary sense of this verse in that one can not privately interpret the Scripture.

There are many others in the NIV. Stay away from it!! Unfortunately, it’s the most popular Protestant translation. Go figure.

 

[porthos11]

NIV is not a bible, by definition, neither is any other protestant translation since it doesn’t contain all the Sacred Books.

Technically, but statements such as these are polemical and should not be used in discussions with them. We must accept the NIV as a respectable Protestant Bible translation, and therefore judge it as such.

 

[porthos11]

1. 2 Peter 1:20 - the original Greek doesn’t mention “by the prophet’s own” but simply “by one’s own” or “by one’s own private.” The NIV is trying to deny the secondary sense of this verse in that one can not privately interpret the Scripture.

But the Church doesn’t teach that we can’t interpret the Bible privately. Many staunch Catholics do and have contributed greatly to the understanding of the faith.

What we cannot do is interpret Scripture apart from the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. In other words, any private interpretation we have must harmonize with the Faith, and not detract from it.

 

[crisco]

Here’s something - although not specifically an NIV translation issue. It deals with what is the acceptable translation in the following passage that might color one’s interpretation of salvation.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through **faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. NIV

its translated much the same in my NSRV, yet the notes in my NSRV indicate that an alternate and increasingly preferred translation of the phrase “faith in Jesus Christ” is ‘the faith of Jesus’ to indicate ‘faithful obedience’.

What do you think?

 

[Guardian]

But the Church doesn’t teach that we can’t interpret the Bible privately. Many staunch Catholics do and have contributed greatly to the understanding of the faith.

What we cannot do is interpret Scripture apart from the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. In other words, any private interpretation we have must harmonize with the Faith, and not detract from it.

1. If you interpret the Bible in a way that is in alignment with Church teaching and tradition, I wouldn’t call that “private.” Semantics issue.
2. More importantly, the Magisterium says they are the only AUTHENTIC interpreters of Scripture (because the Holy Spirit protects them). Sure, you can interpret the Bible privately, but not in an authentic manner necessarily.

 

[rr1213]

Excellent work Randy, you should send a letter to NIV and ask them for their reasons.

You can read the explanation by the NIV translators here:

ibs.org/niv/balance5.php

2 Thessalonians 2:15

If the Greek word paradosis means “tradition” (see NIV footnote alternative), why wasn’t the plural translated “traditions” here instead of “teachings”? After all, paradosis was rendered “tradition” in Matthew 15:2. When paradosis was used in a positive way to refer to the passing on of apostolic teachings, we did not want the reader to think of “the tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:2) or of traditions in general, but of apostolic teachings in particular. So when we believed that reference was to the latter, we usually rendered the term as “teachings” to make that meaning clear to readers. All words must be contextually nuanced. By providing a footnote alternative (“tradition” or “traditions”), we are telling the reader that in those instances we believe that what is being “handed down” is the apostolic “teachings.”

 

[DallasCatholic]

1. If you interpret the Bible in a way that is in alignment with Church teaching and tradition, I wouldn’t call that “private.” Semantics issue.
2. More importantly, the Magisterium says they are the only AUTHENTIC interpreters of Scripture (because the Holy Spirit protects them). Sure, you can interpret the Bible privately, but not in an authentic manner necessarily.

I would argue that your second point does not preclude private interpretation of Scripture by Catholics. Most of our great theologians have privately interpreted the Bible and those interpretations have become Authentic. One Bishop, by himself, is not the Magisterium, the Magisterium is all of the Bishops teaching in union with the Pope. So, for example, Augustine and Aquinas were privately interpreting the Bible until their interpretations were accepted by the Magisterium.

 

[porthos11]

1. If you interpret the Bible in a way that is in alignment with Church teaching and tradition, I wouldn’t call that “private.” Semantics issue.

Yes, it is semantics, although I would think of it this way: the Church hasn’t interpreted all verses, only a very few, and the interpretation is more of “this is an authentic interpretation” rather than “this is the only interpretation.”

For example, if I interpret Jeremiah 29:11, “I know the plans I have for you” to mean that I can trust that the Lord’s will is better for me than my own personal plans and desires, I have, essentially made a private interpretation (and I in fact, do hold on to that interpretation). No Protestant or Catholic would argue with that interpretation.

Now, actually, I have been interpreting out of context. This verse isn’t about personal plans and God’s will for my life situation; it is a promise to the exiles in Babylon, not to us in the modern world.

Yet, it’s a valid interpretation because it hasn’t been generated outside of the Church’s Tradition (i.e. it doesn’t conflict) and indeed, the Magisterium confirms it. Yet the Church hasn’t ruled that this is THE interpretation of the verse, and therefore permits us to interpret it by accommodation.

Here, I have essentially made a private interpretation within the Church’s Tradition.

The important thing to note about the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church is that it’s negative. He doesn’t lead the Church to the right interpretation; he protects her from making the wrong ones. So a verse can have many interpretations privately made, and should be checked whether it’s denied by Tradition and the Magisterium. If it is, then it’s the wrong interpretation.

 

[Guardian]

I would argue that your second point does not preclude private interpretation of Scripture by Catholics. Most of our great theologians have privately interpreted the Bible and those interpretations have become Authentic. One Bishop, by himself, is not the Magisterium, the Magisterium is all of the Bishops teaching in union with the Pope. So, for example, Augustine and Aquinas were privately interpreting the Bible until their interpretations were accepted by the Magisterium.

I agree with you mostly. Fact is, the only true authentic interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, since He is the supreme author of Scripture. Hence, anyone that is guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture is interpreting it authentically. Nothing stops the Holy Spirit from individually guiding people into an authentic interpretation, such as Augustine or Aquinas, or even Protestants or anyone really. It’s just that the Magisterium when defining truth is guaranteed to be guided to an authentic interpretation, whereas an individual may or may not be authentically interpreting Scripture…and many times is not.

 

[jemfinch]

Matthew 19 is another example where the Protestant bias (in this case against the indissolubility of marriage) shines through:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Odd how porneias switches from “sexual immorality” to “marital unfaithfulness” when the translators are trying to defend their tradition of permitting men to put asunder what God has joined.

Jeremy

 

[Wisdom]

Matthew 19 is another example where the Protestant bias (in this case against the indissolubility of marriage) shines through:

Odd how porneias switches from “sexual immorality” to “marital unfaithfulness” when the translators are trying to defend their tradition of permitting men to put asunder what God has joined.

Jeremy

The New Jerusalem Bible translates this passage to “illicit marriage” and its probably more accurate than most to the real meaning of what is meant. As it concerns the greek word porneia which would refer to an illicit sexual union for instance an incesteous marriage, which was allowed for in gentile cultures but under the Hebrew culture Matthew was directed at was clearly not allowed so under circumstances the porneia clause would be in effect it was not talking simply about adultery as the greek nor the coressponind synotics give us this exception, it is the tradition of men mostly protestant translators looking for justification for protestant dicorce are playing way to loose with the true meaning of the text.

 

[Wisdom]

Matthew 19 is another example where the Protestant bias (in this case against the indissolubility of marriage) shines through:

Odd how porneias switches from “sexual immorality” to “marital unfaithfulness” when the translators are trying to defend their tradition of permitting men to put asunder what God has joined.

Jeremy

The New Jerusalem Bible translates this passage to “illicit marriage” and its probably more accurate than most to the real meaning of what is meant. As it concerns the greek word porneia which would refer to an illicit sexual union for instance an incesteous marriage, which was allowed for in gentile cultures but under the Hebrew culture Matthew was directed at was clearly not allowed so under circumstances the porneia clause would be in effect it was not talking simply about adultery as the greek nor the coresspononding synotics give us this exception, it is the tradition of men mostly protestant translators looking for justification for protestant dicorce are playing way to loose with the true meaning of the text.

 

[AlegreFe]

You totally pegged it Randy.

Protestants in the NIV are lying about teaching versus tradition because they can’t stand the concept of tradition in a good light.

Remember that Paul said “To hold fast to the traditions that I have given you.”

Paradosis is Paradosis!

That is not good. But it’s a good thing they do put “or tradition” in the footnotes online at Bible Gateway.

If you really know the meaning of “tradition” it is still within the context of that passage. You just have to look for it. Still, it would be better if they translated to word “tradition” as it should’ve been translated.

Really, if you do read it carefully, it’s all there. Tradition means to pass down a teaching right?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NIV)
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the
teachings we passed on to you,
whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Even though the correct word that should be in place of “teachings” should be “tradition,” you could still prove your point of “Sacred Tradition” if you tell the person what the word “tradition” actually means and then you could point them to “word of mouth” in the passage. As much as they tried to “get out of this one,” they will never really escape the real meaning of TRADITION in that passage.

Jerry-Jet:

That’s also why Catholics must be ever vigilant–not only when using Catholc bibles but especially when using Protestant ones!

One of the better protestant bibles I like is the one my protestant brother uses. He likes the ESV (English Standard Version). That version is close to the NAB and the RSV-CE/2CE. I don’t think I’ve found any Protestant bias in the ESV bible. As for the bad, my protestant sister uses the NIV, she’s non-denom. My brother is no particular denomination. He just stays at home. and makes up his own thing. His tiny “church” is just him and his “wife.”
Please pray for them? thx.