1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Flaws found in NIV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Van, Jul 21, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Flaws found in the NIV
    1) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read, "therefore" *
    2) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read, "moved with anger." *
    3) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace." *
    4) John 21:5 friends should read, "children."
    5) Acts 13:50 "leaders" should be italicized to indicate an addition to the text.
    6) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read, "propitiatory shelter."*
    7) 1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read, "act like men."
    8) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read, "children of wrath."
    9) Colossians 1:28 the omission of "every man" (or every person) reduces the force of the teaching that the gospel is understandable to every person.*
    10) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read, "for salvation."
    11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read, "who leads an undisciplined life" *
    12) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read, "revealed in the flesh."*
    13) Titus 3:4 love should read, "love for mankind." *
    14) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read, "offering."
    15) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read, "yet rich in faith."
    16) 1 Peter 4:6 those who are now dead should read, "those who are dead."
    17) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation." *
    18) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation."
    19) Rev. 13:8 from the creation should read, "from the foundation."
    20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."
    21) 1 Samuel 15:19 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
    22) 1 Samuel 15:20 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
    23) 1 Samuel 15:22 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
    24) Philemon 1:6 the verse should read as follows: "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to you in Christ."
    25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."


    Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
    Examples 5, 15, 16 and 25 document addition of words.
    Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.
    Example 24 documents a translation devoid of meaning, just an array of disconnected phrases.

    When translators "add" words or phrases, "omit" words or phrases, or translate words or phrases outside of the historical-grammatical meaning unnecessarily, in order to make doctrine driven choices, they are presenting a flawed translation in my opinion. All translations have flaws, the product of fallible people, but the NIV flaws seem abundant to me.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Believers collectively are the body of Christ, the 2011 NIV translation changed the singular to plural, based on the popular view we as indivduals are "temples" of the Holy Spirit.
    body > bodies, temple > temples
    1 Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
     
  3. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I certainly agree that body and temple are singular in the verse. However, the "your" and "you" are plural. The confusion arises that our English "you" can refer to a single person, or to a group of persons. Therefore "your body" seems spot on because a body can mean a group forming a body (a body of believers). So the difficulty comes with how best to translate "who is in you." I think "in all of you" best conveys the idea presented.

    Does that work for you?
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    45,472
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh no! Now you have done it! You have gone and criticized the NIV. Now you must be destroyed.:Laugh
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, challenging the status quo can be dangerous, but I like to think I am in good company. :)
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    476
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not a big fan of the NIV but I've used it while teaching the Sunday Adult Bible class since it's the popular version.

    Van's "flaw list" is simply due to a failure to read the preface of the NIV.

    "The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."
    The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).​

    The NIV is simply not a formal word-for-word translation... it's translators had a different objective.

    From hereon the thread should degenerate into an argument between the various translation techniques.

    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    None of the flaws presented reflect accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors, but rather a failure to do so.

    Changing nouns to verbs can be claimed to be required till the cows come home, but since plenty of other translations across the spectrum stick with the noun, the argument is malarkey. What the change does is a doctrinal driven message change.
     
  8. Dave Gilbert

    Dave Gilbert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    317
    Faith:
    Baptist
    @Deacon :
    Thanks for providing that.
    In careful examination, I see some things that perhaps not everyone here may take exception to:
    The first concern has continued to be the accuracy, which should be the only concern.

    But then they add that, as part of that first concern, its faithfulness to the intended "meaning" of the biblical writers is combined with it.
    I see that entire statement as being a problem, because they've made both:

    1) Word-for-word accuracy, and
    2) Faithfulness to the intended meaning...

    ....As being their first concern.
    They are, in reality, two separate concerns...one of which introduces not just the possibility of error into the mix, but the distinct probability of it.
    From a purity standpoint, they've just introduced their own interpretation of the texts into their process of determining what they decide are the actual words of God. :oops:
    That's not translation...that's editorializing, and then representing that editorializing as the very words of the living God.:Speechless



    We know from Scripture that:

    The words of God are pure words ( Psalms 12:6 ).
    Men cannot be trusted ( Psalms 118:8-9 ), but the Lord can, to the extent that His children are commanded to do it ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).

    What was "intended" by the authors ( in reality, God's Spirit ( 2 Timothy 3:16 )), is not what the problem is.
    The "meaning" of the biblical authors ( in reality, the Holy Ghost's meaning ), should be left up to the reader to decide, not the translator.:Cautious

    The translator has one job to do...
    Render the text as completely faithful to the words of the text in another language, without changing one "jot" or one "tittle".



    If I were on the NIV committee, I would be very afraid.:Sick
    God does not like it when men mess around with His words ( Revelation 22:18-19 ).
     
    #8 Dave Gilbert, Jul 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
  9. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist


    This issue may have arisen from an earlier version, I do not know. Currently the NIV reads "everyone" which certainly can pass muster as an accurate translation, and not an omission. However, the text repeats every person (or every man or every human or all people) three times, whereas the NIV reduces the redundancy to two.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    476
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If God were so concerned about accurate word-for-word translations the New Testament authors would have used that technique.
    Oddly enough they used a variety of techniques, even paraphrasing Scriptures at times.

    Perhaps you'd like to discuss their flawed representation of God's word? :Cautious

    I'm sure God's word is well represented in the NIV and the numerous other modern versions.

    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Dave Gilbert

    Dave Gilbert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    317
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He does and He is.
    I also think that the "authors" that you are referring to is one Author speaking through men, and not many.

    That said, what men do, outside of being guided by the Lord, is going to have ramifications.
    I disagree.

    Over the last several centuries, translators have become more and more concerned with conveying their own understandings of the texts, and not sticking to strictly word-for-word, when they can.
    That is what the NIV does...it takes liberty with a technique know as "Dynamic Equivalency", instead of using "Formal Equivalency"as much as possible.
    I would not.

    But I will go so far as to make this statement:
    As long as men stick with strictly word-for-word translation technique as closely as possible, then God will see their motives in the results, and so will His children.
    I'm equally as sure that it is poorly represented in "translations" like the NLT, NIV "Amplified Bible" and any other ones that paraphrase His precious words.
     
    #11 Dave Gilbert, Jul 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    45,472
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We can trust the authors God inspired to "paraphrase" we cannot ever trust the authors of modern translations to "paraphrase" as they are not inspired of God. The comparison is apples and kitchen sinks.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    476
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I’d really encourage you to read Robert Alter’s recent book, The Art of Bible Translation [LINK] (March 2019). Alter is a great fan of the KJV, yet he does not ignore or disregard its weaknesses.

    He writes:

    The much-celebrated eloquence of the King James Version is very real, and that, coupled with its royal authorization, must have had a great deal to do with its rise to canonical status and with its profound influence on literary English.
    One of the strengths of the 1611 translation is what I would call its inspired (not divinely inspired) literalism. The seventeenth-century translators worked with the theological conviction that every word of the Bible was revealed to humankind by God and that one didn’t play games with God’s words. (p.3)

    …I clearly want to resist the notion of “dynamic equivalence” that has had some currency in recent Bible translations. The basic idea is to transpose the verbal formulations and idioms of the Bible into different ones that are entirely indigenous to the modern target language. One can see how such a procedure could make the “message” of the Bible more immediately accessible to readers in the many far-flung cultures where it is now read, but it inevitably entails a palpable degree of misrepresentation of the Bible’s literary vehicle. (p.23) ​

    So as one who attempts to study the Hebrew Bible in its original language, I see the weaknesses of dynamic equivalence, and yet use the translations that employ the technique as a steppingstone to further study.

    Rob
     
  14. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    25,799
    Likes Received:
    655
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So Van - what versions do you prefer / like to use?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    476
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you’re saying we are not to follow the examples of the apostles? :p
    God expects exactness in todays translations but graded on a curve in ages past? :Inlove

    Rob
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    45,472
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hmmm, You seemed to have missed the point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    66
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You do not prove your statement to be factual and to be based on use of consistent, just measures. You do not demonstrate that you apply your professed standards or measures for translating consistently and justly.

    Perhaps others may see the Church of England makers of the KJV as being concerning with conveying their own Church of England understandings of the texts, and not sticking strictly to word-for-word, whenever they can.

    I have not advocated nor recommended the NIV, but I do not see the same exact measures/standards that some attempt to apply to it being applied consistently and justly to the KJV.
     
  18. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My go to version is the NASB95 because I am told it best presents the historical-grammatical translation method. But I scrub it, first by reading a verse without the italicized words, and (2) using the footnoted "literal" translation. But of course, I still encounter flaws where some other version (including the dreaded NIV) does a better job.

    If you would care to discuss a specific flaw in another version, I can accommodate but I would prefer, as 37818 did in post #3, to discuss other poorly translated verses in the NIV.
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    35,535
    Likes Received:
    922
    Faith:
    Baptist
    2 of the biggest problems are failure to link Jesus to OT Son of Man, and to assume plural use of you when at times meant personal!
     
  20. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,566
    Likes Received:
    171
    Faith:
    Baptist


    I think it is well accepted that the phrase "from the foundation of the world" refers to creation, so what is "flawed" about decoding the idiomatic meaning?

    Here you need to look at all four places where this same phrase is translated by the NIV. In Matthew 25:34 and Hebrews 4:3 you find "since" the creation of the world, whereas at Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 you find from the creation of the world.

    Would the phrase translation be flawed if all four translations read "since the creation of the world?" Or "from the creation of the world." Or how about all four reading "since the foundation of the world?"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...