Featured Defense of the NIV

This must be where you would like better answers. I'll give it a whirl. See if you can keep up. :smilewinkgrin:

First of all, concerning the Johannine Comma, the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Textform Greek NT and the Hodges/Farstad Majority both have it as of course the TR does. The Byzantine texttype represents an older genealogical line than the Alexandrian according to Dr. Robinsons's genealogical studies, though the Alexandrian has a couple of older mss as is often pointed out. However, to me the best argument for the Byz/Maj and thus the Comma is the regularity of the Byz/Maj text compared to the Alexandrian (and of course no one votes for the Western), in spite of its vast number of mss. This says to me that the copyists for the Byz/Maj were careful and thorough, while the Alexandrians were not. (Just look at all the corrections in the margin of Vaticanus, for example.) There are a lot more points I could make, but I'll wait for you to answer this one.

Concerning the longer ending to Mark, the vast majority of mss, even in the Alexandrian family of texts, have it. Robinson says that aleph and B, which do not have it, are "'Alexandrian exceptions' to the overall situation of that texttype" (Perspectives on the Longer Ending of Mark, p. 45). Now if almost all mss of all three major texttypes have it, what is your reason for rejecting it?

 

Folks criticize the NIV from several perspectives. One, it leans toward the Critical Text, rather than the Byzantine or the TR. Lots of faults posted because it does not contain or brackets what are seen as corruptions, such as the Johannine Comma or the long ending in Mark.

All these criticisms could be seen as supporting the NIV if you accept the critical text as most likely the most accurate form of God's original message.

Another line of fault finding is that NIV sometimes decides what an ambiguous phrase means, and thus they translate it with clarity. When they get it right, God bless them, but if others think they got it wrong, they are dirt bags for not sticking with the literal ambiguous phrase. Romans 1:17 contains the phrase, "righteousness of God" and they interpret it to mean in this context the "righteousness from God."
It is possible that was indeed the actual meaning.

However, at other times it seems clear they missed the mark. Isaiah 1:5 reads, you head is injured, but the Hebrew reads you head is sick.
Now the actual idea my be injury, looking at the context, but your head is afflicted would cover both bases.

Similarly Isaiah 1:17 has "defend the oppressed" where others think the idea was rebuke the oppressor. Again, the NIV may be right, but other translations do not see it that way.

All in all, Calvinist leaning folks like the NIV and ESV for obvious reasons, playing fast and loose with word meanings, but many times the NIV seems to get it right and present God's truth with clarity.

If a person wishes to study and seek a deeper understanding of God's actual message, using the NIV for comparison is better than using it as a baseline. The NASB, HCSB, NET, WEB, and NKJV are better yet.

 

I wrote:

Evangelist6589 ignored this, so I'll expand a little more hoping he'll answer.

In the above mentioned essay Dr. Robinson writes about the eclectic Greek text (UBS/Nestles) used for the NIV and many modern versions: "The resultant text -- even within relatively short segments -- becomes an entity that apparently never existed at any time or place" (p. 33). This is because of the eclectic canons (rules for textual criticism) followed by the editors. Many times this results in readings only supported by one mss--over 190 times by his count.

An example Dr. Robinson gave is from Mark 11:3--
3 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. (KJV)
3 kai ean tiV umin eiph, ti poieite touto; eipate, oti o kurioV autou creian ecei, kai euqewV auton
apostelei wde (TR)
NIV: If anyone asks you, why are you doing this, tell him, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly."
UBS: kai ean tiV umin eiph, ti poieite touto; eipate, o kurioV aouto creian ecei, kai euquV auton
apostellei palin wde.
Now in this combination of words, shall we say again, the verse exists nowhere in the mss! Not a single ms has the verse in this combination. So here the NIV and any other MV that follows this reading has a verse put together by sheer conjecture!

Here is something else that evang ignored while complaining that I gave him some reading suggestions. The NIV does have the Johannine Comma, even if it has a note saying it is not in the most ancient mss. Again, the NIV has the longer ending of Mark, while again having a similar note. In other words, they weren't quite willing to take these passages out of the NT. They talk a good game but don't carry it through!

And by the way, the NIV I have does not even mention the other endings. So if they were to take out the longer ending of Mark, they would be left with v. 8 as their ending verse: "Trembling and bewildered, women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

So, evangelist6589, is that really how you want your Gospel of Mark to end, with the women disciples trembling, bewildered and afraid? Really???

 

Would you rather they them out altogether? For the sake of tradition they are present albeit in smaller type and set apart from the body of the authentic text.

Mark 16:8 :Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9,and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of etermal salvation.

 

You recently acknowledged that the GNT uses dynamic equivalence because as I have pointed out to you many times before Eugene Nida was behind that particular translation philosophy. The NIV's translation philosophy was not dynamic equivalence --search in vain for any reference to it in the NIV Preface or any NIV books explaining its translational objectives such as Kenneth Barker's works.

The NIV uses functional equivalence as does the ESV,HCSB,NASBU and many others. The NIV just uses it more than the aforementioned ones. You confuse the NIV placement with the NLTse. That uses a conservative amount of dynamic,or functional equvalence in its translation --its Preface says so as well.

 

I still like a line from Dr.Glenn J. Kerr's review of Price's work;"Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition,and Price's glossary entry could equally be applied to Dynamic Equivalnce,Functional Equivalence,or Meaning-based theory."

 

I have a mea culpa about my Latin phrases. I made a beginner's error on textual criticism, as a scholar friend has pointed out.

However, what I was talking about in John 8 is called the Pericope Adulterae. The Johannine Comma is in 1 John 5:7, and only has 9 Greek mss supporting it, even among Byzantine mss. Its status is a completely different discussion.

 

No, I'm glad they're in there. I think they should be! In the NIV I have here at home the type is the same size, though they are set apart in the text.

The NIV I have here at home does not have this note, and the font is the same size as the rest of the text. (I have a leather bound, more usual version at the church.)

This NIV is interesting. It was printed in a special edition for distribution to the US Special Forces, and was given to me by a former Green Beret. It's a paperback with a photo on the front of troopers parachuting, and has various helps and patriotic sayings at the beginning and end of the Bible.

 

Well, of course! I've always known that the GNT is dynamic equivalence, and never said otherwise! In fact it is the first translation done with the method, a poster child for DE, as it were, done by theological liberal Bratcher. I remember when it came out and the big fuss made over its use of "death" instead of "blood" for Christ's sacrifice.

Um, functional equivalence is the same translation theory as dynamic equivalence. Nida changed his terminology in his third and final book on his method, From One Language to Another, written with Jan de Waard. The authors wrote, "Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence.... It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding" (pp. vii-viii).

Nida's friend and co-worker Stine wrote, “Nida later felt that the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term ‘dynamic’ to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of ‘functional equivalence,’ he began to use this latter term instead. 'Functional equivalence' was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Let the Words be Written, Philip Stine, p. 51).

So, it's good to read that you finally acknowledge the NIV translation method as DE/FE! :smilewinkgrin::saint:

PS Don't feel bad. I messed up textual criticism terminology on this thread.

 

That's old news.

I have not finally acknowledged that fact. I have said it all along. It's a mediating version. What I object to is your constant refrain that it's dynamic equivalence;whereas it has elements of both. The translators did not set about to translate in a functionally-equivalent way like the CEV,NCV,TEV/GNT etc. It's generally acknowledged that the NIV has a balanced philosophy of translation.

 

Think the HCSB has a better 'Balanced" approach!

And still think for serious studying, either Nasb/Nkjv to be preferred!

 

In the OP, it says:

I don't think this is fair to Rippon, who is not an expert in the languages but has studied books on translation a lot. He and I don't see eye to eye, but at least he's in there trying. evangelist6589 should do the same on this thread he has started. And by the way, evang has never answered Rippon's post #6, which was a legitimate question IMO.

Again, he wrote:

In this he (1) ignored the fact that he himself had recommended White's book to me. (So it's all right for him, but not for me?) (2) Ignored two points I had made already, which I have now expanded on.

I have also since made other points in the area of textual criticism in answer to evangelist6589's points, and they have gone unanswered.

So, I challenge evangelist6589 to come back and answer the points I've made--himself, with no surrogates, no excuses about not knowing the original languages. He started something, and good character says you should finish what you started. (If he had not started the thread and made the above statements, I wouldn't care.)

 

Here is a rendering which IMO is a dynamic equivalence rendering in the NIV. In many places, especially in the general epistles, it translates the Greek agaphtoV (agapetos) as "Dear friend." (More literal translations render this as "beloved.")

The Koine Greek has two words for friend, filoV (philos) and etairoV (hetairos). The first one is the normal word for friend used throughout the NT. The second is only used in the NT four times in the book of Matthew. So, if the authors of sacred Scripture meant to say "dear friend" in the passages in question, they would probably have written agaphtoV filoV, with differing endings depending on the case, with agaphtoV meaning "dear" and filoV meaning "friend." But they did not.

So, why does the NIV translate with "Dear friend"? Obviously because the translators believed that the modern reader response to that phrase would be equivalent to the original readers' response to agaphtoV. Thus there is a clear DE rendering in the NIV where this word occurs in many places. And that is the only justification I can imagine for this free rendering of the original.

 

Toss in the NAB,NET Bible,ISV and others for the balaned approach that the NIV and HCSB share.

For serious study flank the NASB with some dynamically-oriented translations like the NLTse, and other versions.

 

Okay, I'll be looking forward to your answers. I thought you might be busy. I have to say, though, that I've noticed you posting on other threads in the meantime. :smilewinkgrin:

I trust the Lord will do some wonderful things through your evangelistic efforts.

 

I miss read this, so I'll back out.

 

No one can fault you on this thread if you do your best.