Hebrews 1:3

Posted by Skan re Heb 2.9:

The NET Bible translates this as "lower than the angels for a little while" but has a note saying it can also be translated as, "who was made a little lower than the angels." I guess it depends on where "little" belongs.

I have a friend who calls the NIV the "nearly inspired version."

I think the NIV is good but it's not one that I use. Ever since I saw that it left out something in a passage in Judges that makes the story less dramatic, I haven't liked it (the KJ, NASB, and NLT all have it). Will have to look for the passage.

 

Gotta go with Skan on this. While I like the NIV, it is not for everyone.

But you are right as well, Larry. The whole point of a translation is to convey what is written in the original, not to interpret what was written by the author. But, for this purpose, the NIV, or any non-literal translation, would not be the best choice.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Strictly speaking, all translations are interpretations. The NIV does a good job with a greater amount of interpretation. The issue of "conveying what is written in the original" does not extend only to words, but to thoughts. If the thought of the words in sequence and context is not communicated, then it is not a good translation. That is why DE is a necessity in translation.

 

The NIV is based on a different underlying text type than the KJV. The text underlying the NIV omits the words "di eautou" translated "by himself" in the KJV. That omission is supported by Aleph, A, B, D (Abschrift), H (before correction), P, Psi, 33, 81, 181 (before correction), 436, 629, 1962, and 2492.

The inclusion of "di eautou" is included in D (corrector), H (corrector), K, 121b, 88, 104, 181 (margin), 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1739, 1877, 1881, 1984, 1985, 2495, all the Byzantine texts, and all the lectionaries.

Additionally, the words are present with a grammatical variant in p46 (one of the oldest manuscripts in existence dated to the close of the 3rd century, or around 200 AD), D (Greek but not in the parallel Latin), and 2127.

So it seems to me that the inclusion of the words "by himself" is much better attested to than omitting those words. And even the UBS editors admit there is a "considerable degree of doubt" concerning the omitting of the words.

However, I think it is also important to note that the inclusion or exclusion of the two words does not change any bible doctrine, nor does it change the meaning of the verse. It is still clear that the "cleansing" was accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ.

My advice is to use a bible based on the Byzantine text. Those would include the MKJV, the TMB, and the NKJV, if you find the KJV language too cumbersome. </font>[/QUOTE]This is an excellent post except for the last paragraph. Something like 95% of all professional critics of the New Testament text believe that the Critical Text Type is much more accurate than the Byzantine Text Type. The NASB is based primarily on the Critical Text and it is also a more accurate translation than any available translation of the Byzantine Text.

 

Amen!

 

Amen! And you should also study all of the translations that you use to learn why one translation says one thing, and another translation a different thing.

 

Not everyone who has studied the NIV would agree with this statement! I for one certainly do not agree with it!

 

I share this point of veiw.

 

Very well said! I heartily agree!

 

The NIV, however, is primarily a DE translation; the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB are primarily FE translations.

 

One English translation (for this "generation"):

I don't think we are there yet and we may never be.

My opinion:
Two NASB versions would perhaps be a workable compromise:
A TR version and the current CT version.

HankD

 

As such, the NIV is much better equipped to translate the intent of the author. Idioms have to be dynamically translated. An FE misses this. Everyone accepts the DE in the KJV; then they turn around and blast the NIV for it. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The NIV is not my favorite translation for preaching. But it is a very good one.

 

It is NOT the job of the translator to interpret the intent of the author; it is the job of the translator to translate the words so that the reader can interpret them for himself. And NNE is questioning the occasional use of DE in translating idioms in FE translations such as the KJV. The NIV, however, is primarily a DE translation with a very strong theological bias—all of the committee members that selected the translators (who admittedly represented many different denominations) and made the final decisions for the translation were members of the Reformed persuasion.

The NIV goes so far as to completely recast some verses in the Bible with the result being that some of the verbs are not translated at all. The NASB, on the other hand, much more than any other translation, goes to great lengths to precisely translate each and every verb using as close as possible the equivalent tense in English. In the case of the Greek historical present, where in English we have no tense that even comes close, the NASB uses a past tense but includes an asterisk to alert the reader than in the Greek text a present tense form is used. No other translation does this. They simply use a past tense and the reader has no clue at all that the verb in the original is a present tense verb.

Another very serious problem with the NIV is that it chops up lengthy, complex sentences into short, simple sentences with the result that subordinate clauses become primary clauses and the text is hugely distorted and the primary idea of the passage is lost to the reader.

One of the best tests of the accuracy of a translation is known as back-translation where a translation is translated back to the original without consulting the original. When this test is applied to the NIV, it fails miserably. When the identical test is applied to the NASB, it passes the test remarkably.

For accuracy, there is NO comparison between the NIV and the NASB.

 

Sure it is. It is impossible not to. This is so basic to translation that I wonder that it is questioned. Perhaps you have never had the opportunity to speak through an interpreter. I have preached many times through an interpreter. It is vital that the interpreter translate my intent, with whatever words in the language are necessary to communicate that intent.

The breaking up of sentences is part of the communication of the message. God's word should not be hard by virtue of translation.

Your "back translation" test simply won't work. There are too many options. When you try it, even from teh NASB, it is impossible to come away with any resembling the original text.

While the NIV is not the Bible I preach from, it is a very accurate translation, in some places more accurate than even the NASB, by virtue of its communication style.

The NIV endures a lot of attacks like this that really don't hold water when you understand language and translation.

 

Pastor Larry,

Language structure and translation theory have been my primary field of study for many years. The language structure of much of the Greek New Testament is highly complex and is the consequence of the highly complex concepts being expressed. It is linguistically impossible to express these highly complex concepts using a simplified language structure such as that employed by the translators of the NIV. The result is that the message of the New Testament is grossly distorted in the NIV.

Even the translators of the NASB employed a less complex language structure than that employed by the New Testament writers whose works they were translating, but there is no comparison between the language structure of the NASB and the NIV; nor is there any comparison between the amount of information that is lost or distorted.

The writers of the New Testament frequently employed the use of passive participles and other grammatical constructions that are used much less frequently in English, especially by persons with less than a 7th grade education. Therefore, when these grammatical constructions are employed in English translations, they are often misunderstood by those with minimal language skills. The editorial committees of the NIV were of the opinion that, since these grammatical constructions are frequently misunderstood by English speaking readers, translations using them, such as the NASB, were not being read with an accurate understanding. Therefore they employed more common grammatical constructions which are more accurately understood, but those more common grammatical constructions convey a different meaning! The end result was that the NIV is easy to read and can be accurately understood, but what is being understood is not at all the same as what was written by the New Testament writers.

The New Testament is full of action, and action, of course, is expressed through the use of verbs and their tenses. When the tenses are changed to make the sentences easier to understand, the very nature of the action being expressed is changed. ONLY a perfect passive participle can express the kind of action that this grammatical construction expresses. If a reader does not have enough education to recognize and understand the significance of a perfect passive participle, the solution is not to change the message of the New Testament to accommodate the reader; the solution is to educate the reader so that he can understand and appreciate the language structure of the New Testament.

 

I absolutely disagree with you! Intentions are very often misunderstood! Psychoanalysis is NOT the job of the translator. The job of the translator is linguistic analysis (including form analysis) of the original followed by conveyance of that information in the receptor language based exclusively and honestly upon that analysis. Linguistic analysis is interpretive enough without adding to it the supposed intentions of the author.

 

Difference is, an interpreter repeating spoken words in another language has VOICE INFLECTIONS and "body language" to assist him/her while a translator of written material has only the document before him.

 

A most important observation! Thank you!

 

Craig, How have you studied linguistics for years and hold the position you do? I seriously don't understand that. I am not trying to put you down or anything, it is just amazing to me that you say the things you do. I typically here those kinds of arguments from people who don't know one word of a foreign language ... KJVOs. Every single language professor I have ever had has preferred the NIV primarily because of its clarity and accuracy. These are men who have spent their lives in the study of the original languages.

To say that the NIV grossly distorts the NT message is unbelievable ... it is so beyond the pale that I wonder if you are being serious.

NT Greek is not as complex as you make it out to be. I have translated over half of the NT and have very little trouble with it. It just isn't that complex. It is simply a different language from a different time when communication was very different. But it is simple Greek, especially compared to classical Greek.

As ffor Robycop's statement, that is irrelevant. I have shared this example before, but I will do it again. I was in Brazil for three months one time, stumbling through some beginning portuguese. In my best FE manner, I asked a teenager, "How old are you?" ... I translated it word for word. I have never gotten a more confused look for anything I have ever said. So I repeated it again word for word. The missionary was standing nearby so I called him over and asked him. He started laughing. He said I wasn't making any sense. The literal translation meant nothing to a Brazilian. What I needed to ask was "How many years do you have?" When I said that, the brazilian started laughing. We had a good laugh about it. And it indicated very clearly that FE just doesn't work all the time. It is impossible translate without DE. Translating my own words into Portuguese meant that authorial intent was never compromised. But it didn't make any sense whatsoever. You get the same thing with idioms. Tell a foreigner it is a raining cats and dogs and they don't know quite what to say in most cases. On this same trip, I was in a service where a South AFrican preaching in English was being translated into Portuguese. Because of his accent, the portuguese clarified somethings for me that I couldn't understand. But he used the word "diaper," which the translator translated as "diaper." It made no sense to the Brazilians because "diaper" South Africa is a napkin; it is not baby's underpants. Again, you see from common sense that FE simply doesn't work all the time.

DE is not only a proper method of translation. It is a necessary method of translation. That's not psychoanalysis in the least. It is communication. Authorial intent is derived from understanding the language and idioms of the parent language, and the language and idioms of the receptor language. The translator of the South African understand the langugae, but not the idioms. He messed up. I, trying to talk in Portuguese, understood the language but not the idioms. I messed up. In neither case was word for word functional equivalency in the least bit communicative of the authorial intent.

Personally, the NIV is more dynamic than I like. But I certainly wouldn't call it a "gross mistranslation" or whatever the words you used were. That is simply inaccurate and overstated.

 

This is one thing that bothers me about the NIV. Check out Judges 3:22:

ESV

NASB

NIV

The Message and the New Century Version also leave "refuse" or a similar term out. The NLT ("the king's bowels empties"), the KJV ("dirt") and NKJV ("entrails") follow the NASB and the ESV, although I think the NLT and KJV terms are more like the NASB and ESV.

By leaving this word out, it sort of leaves something out of the story if you read it. It's a tad unsavory in mixed company, so will not go into it here but the NIV leaving this term out was a topic in one my seminary classes.