An Example of My Growing Disappointment with NIV2011

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TCGreek, Jul 28, 2011.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been reading through the Gospels. I got to Luke 12:15 and decided to see how it reads in the updated NIV (2011):

    Now compare its predecessor, NIV84:

    The Greek text actually has two autou's, functioning as possessives. Consider the ESV:

    At this point, the translators of the updated NIV (2011) felt like these pronouns weren't worth translating.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Its real predecessor was the TNIV. And the TNIV rendering is exactly the same as the 2011 NIV. Is the meaning of the passage altered to any extent from that of the 84 NIV? Or are you busy making a molehill into a mountain?

    You go back and forth on Bible versions TCG. First it was the NASB. Then the TNIV. Then the ESV.Then the 2011 NIV. Now the ESV again. Can you stay put for a while? :)
     
  3. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as name is concern, NIV84 is the rightful predecessor here.

    Regarding Luke 12:15, by the use of the personal/possessive pronouns, the text is more individualized. This element is missing in the current NIV's render.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I've never been a fan of the NIV or it's daughters but I won't turn my nose up at them either.

    I see your point TC but IMO the passage in the TNIV/NIV2011 is far more memorable and more pleasing to the ear while still conveying the original meaning.

    Rob
     
    #4 Deacon, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2011
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Be on your guard isn't personal enough for ya'?
     
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus was being particular by the use of these pronouns.
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    While "your" is justified from the presence of the Greek imperative φυλάσσεσθε, two pronouns are simply untranslated, which would have added to the force of the text. Why? A gender issue.
     
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    Exactly right. And no one has the right to dump a couple of our Lord's words out of the Bible for no good reason other than political correctness.

    Steve
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    And the charge of political correctness is a false one. The meaning of the original is intact in the 2011 NIV's translation of Luke 12:15.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    TC, you obviously enjoy a literal version.
    If I remember right your first love was the NASB.
    I still compare versions I read to it.

    Word-for-word literalness isn't a strong point in the NIV, comprehension is

    but the personal possessive in this verse while not present is certainly implied.

    No big deal in my mind.

    Rob
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's just that I enjoy making sermon points from words. I like to see them in the translation that I'm using.

    I find it interesting that these translations commentaries are more exact than the translations they contribute to.

    For example, Douglas Moo, chair of CBT, which is behind the NIV, in his Pillar commentary on Colossians objects to the NIV's untranslations of the first panta anthrwpov at 1:28.

    Just saying.
     
  12. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    Well I can think of no other reason for changing the 1984 reading, which is perfectly comprehensible. And as I say, we do not have the right to extract two words out of the Bible for no good reason.

    Steve
     
  13. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess in 84niv, a woman's life can exist in abundance of possessions.. it just says "Man" and "His"... Did Jesus mean this to only apply to the male gender or both?...

    If both, then the pronouns were not dropped for no go reason. It corrects the meaning here.. I still like the TNIV.. ooops I mean the New NIV!... ROFL...
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Don't usually post here, but I can't let this one go. The decision should be based on a loyalty to the text, not on one's political bias. Would anyone reading "man's" think that the woman was excluded?
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    CBT : "We object very strongly to the accusation that our gender translation decisions were motivated by a desire to avoid causing offense. Our concern is alaways,in every decision we make,to represent God's Word accurately and naturally in modern English --we have no other agenda."
     
  16. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what about "man" at Matt 4:4 and "men" at 1 Cor. 13:1, just to name a few? ;-)
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCGreek, I commend you on your convictions. They've been consistent in terms of textual fidelity. But you've dared question the sacred cow of the NIV. You should've known better :laugh:. And praise the ESV? GASP :eek:

    :tongue3:
     
  18. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, well, well!
     
  19. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'm confused!
    You were gung-ho for the TNIV a while back,
    The revision of the NIV brings it in line with many readings in the TNIV.
    Why the recent disillusionment with the new changes?

    I'd like to see more places where you disagree with the "new" NIV and agree with the "old" TNIV.
    I'd bet there are few.

    Rob
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Tom's a TNIV/2011NIV/ESV enthusiast as well as a critiquer of the same.

    It's always interesting to get TCG's perspective on things translational.
     

Share This Page

Loading...