NIV 2010

Page 2 of 3 (41 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 40 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 4889
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 7 2010 8:28 PM

NIV 2011 -- Ezek. 33:12 (verse most changed from NIV 1984) has the following gaff:

"The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous."

Classic grade school grammar mistake...tsk, tsk, tsk.

(We teachers have to represent.)

 

Posts 2539
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 4:39 AM

David Paul:

NIV 2011 -- Ezek. 33:12 (verse most changed from NIV 1984) has the following gaff:

"The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous."

Classic grade school grammar mistake...tsk, tsk, tsk.

(We teachers have to represent.)

 

Question to the 'teacher(s)'?  if you want to get rid of the He/She bit and if you do not 'know' if it is a he or a she what word do you use where the "they" is in the above quote?  [is the rule   One person => he/she     one or more known persons => you    one or more unknown persons => they ?]

[Yes, the older NIV says man / he  rather then person / they]

Posts 1932
Donnie Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 6:12 AM

David Paul:

NIV 2011 -- Ezek. 33:12 (verse most changed from NIV 1984) has the following gaff:

"The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous."

Classic grade school grammar mistake...tsk, tsk, tsk.

(We teachers have to represent.)

The translation notes for the new NIV explain precisely why they did this, and I found the analysis they did on current English language usage very interesting. Language is not static. That said, I'm not sure I agree with the decision. But they have explained it.

Donnie

 

Posts 1680
Jerry M | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 6:19 AM

It seems they are slightly stretching proper English usage to make it gender neutral.  I believe I have heard English used this way.  At the risk of sounding old fashioned, it seems to me that much of the English speaking Christian world uses the NIV, and may continue to use the new NIV.  Therefore the gender neutral language is kind of being forced on us.  I know we don't have to buy one.  I know some feel this should have been done years ago.  I am just saying that the ramifications of the committee decisions are far reaching.

"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"      Wiki Table of Contents

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 7:30 AM

The big translation problem comes from choosing between these two language decisions:

 

  • The author wrote such-and-such, and in our current language it means such-and-such [used in dynamic equivalence]

versus

  • I know the author used this particular word(s), but it would be better understood using this different word(s) [used with most decisional gender changes]

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 7:39 AM

Donnie Hale:
The translation notes for the new NIV explain precisely why they did this, and I found the analysis they did on current English language usage very interesting. Language is not static. That said, I'm not sure I agree with the decision. But they have explained it.

The Federalist Papers were written for the "common man" (farmers & such.) Most high school graduates in the USA today cannot understand them. We have US Senators who don't use proper grammar. We have news anchors & other journalists who can't write, spell or speak. Theses facts do not bode well for the future of Bible translations based on English usage.

A tract can convey the Gospel message. If we have to keep dumbing down our translations we could dispense with translators entirely and go with "The Wordless Book."
But wait! Even that has undergone a revision by Child Evangelism Fellowship.

Maybe we will have an the NIV version of the Wordless Book in 2024..........Devil

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 1932
Donnie Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 8:19 AM

I'm not sure what to make of this response. The only thing I said that could be misconstrued, I suppose, is that language isn't static. That's just a statement of fact.

Anyone who knows me knows: a) I don't like any flavor of the NIV; b) I consider politically-correct motivated gender translation to be wrong; c) I hold to a very high view of Scripture, including inerrancy and the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs. For what it's worth, a fantastic book on the issue of functional vs. dynamic equivalence is "The Word of God In English" by Leland Ryken.

That doesn't mean I'm not open minded to valid reasons to improve English translations.

(Stumped...)

Donnie

 

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 9:42 AM

Donnie Hale:

I'm not sure what to make of this response. The only thing I said that could be misconstrued, I suppose, is that language isn't static. That's just a statement of fact.

Anyone who knows me knows: a) I don't like any flavor of the NIV; b) I consider politically-correct motivated gender translation to be wrong; c) I hold to a very high view of Scripture, including inerrancy and the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs. For what it's worth, a fantastic book on the issue of functional vs. dynamic equivalence is "The Word of God In English" by Leland Ryken.

That doesn't mean I'm not open minded to valid reasons to improve English translations.

(Stumped...)

Donnie

 

I'm sorry Donnie. I am in agreement with your comments above and was only using the evolving "language usage" statement as a stepping stone for my little rant. I surely did not mean to denigrate your post in any way.  My liberal friends think I am narrow-minded about Bible translations and my conservative friends think I am too accommodating. If I could manage to follow the Sermon on the Mount in any version, I would be a better disciple.

Please forgive me for being flippant using your post as a platform.Devil

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 1932
Donnie Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 10:10 AM

Of course, The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill.

My $.02 ...

Donnie

 

Posts 490
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 10:33 AM

Donnie Hale:

Of course, The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill.

My $.02 ...

 

Hmm... that 2¢ might be a wooden nickel. Wink  Sorry, just following the analogy--my goal's not actually to offend. 

I find it difficult to square 7:24-27 with any theory that the Sermon on the Mount was not actually intended for life in the Kingdom of God--for both the original hearers and us.

I'd recommend both Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship and Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy as practical explorations for implementing Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount into one's everyday experience. 

 

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 11:53 AM

Matthew C Jones:
The Federalist Papers were written for the "common man" (farmers & such.) Most high school graduates in the USA today cannot understand them.

I don't know if that is true. Why just the other day I walked by some teens sitting on a stoop, and the one said to the other

"You know, this idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event."

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 8 2010 11:58 AM

Donnie Hale:
The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill.

That is precisely what bothers me about the CEF addition to the Wordless Book. By adding the Green page to represent "growth in the Christian life" it appears CEF is implying your good works will purchase your salvation.

If the only point of Bible study is to get saved, we really don't need the other 99%.

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 1509
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:01 PM

16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV1984 Mal 2:16

16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV2011 Mal 2:16

Posts 1659
Allen Browne | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:48 PM

Joshua Garcia:
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV1984 Mal 2:16

16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV2011 Mal 2:16

Joshua, you might want to check some commentaries to grasp why there is a difficulty in understanding the best way to translate this verse.

Whichever translation you end up deciding on, you need to at least be aware of the possibility of the other one.

 

Posts 1509
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 4:21 AM

Allen Browne:

Joshua Garcia:
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV1984 Mal 2:16

16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.

NIV2011 Mal 2:16

Joshua, you might want to check some commentaries to grasp why there is a difficulty in understanding the best way to translate this verse.

Whichever translation you end up deciding on, you need to at least be aware of the possibility of the other one.

 

I certainly understand why some have translated this verse another way, but this is more than just an update to the verse, it is a complete re-working of it. I find it strange that they broke completely from the original meaning of the 1984 translation. In essence, the 2011 translation committee is saying that the 1984 committee were wrong.

 

Posts 296
Jonathan West | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 6:26 AM

It is a complete revision, so there are a few verses that have been retanslated in this way based on current scholrship etc.

www.emmanuelecc.org

Posts 92
Chris Lohroff | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 8:07 AM

This isn't exactly correct is it?  According to the analysis done here:

 

http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison

 

It's really just a slight revision of the TNIV.  What we've gotten here really isn't a NEW NIV, it's a Revised TNIV.  It looks to me that since the TNIV didn't get the market penetration they wanted they've tried again by releasing it as a the new NIV (with some changes).  According to the above site there is only 8% difference between the TNIV and the NIV 2011.  That doesn't sound to me like a complete revision.

(from the site listed above)

  • Compared to the NIV1984: 19030 verses (61.1%) are the same, and 12056 verses (38.8%) differ.
  • Compared to the TNIV: 28595 verses (91.9%) are the same, and 2491 verses (8.0%) differ.
Posts 21
Robert Slowley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 8:22 AM

A slight clarification: That's 7.5% of verses in the NIV2011 that have text different from the TNIV or NIV1984. In 0.6% of cases the text is 'reverted' to the same text as the NIV1984.

Included in that 7.5% are potentially very minor changes (like a change of punctuation). So while 7.5% of verses are different from both previous versions, it doesn't necessarily mean the changes are major.

Posts 21
Robert Slowley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 8:23 AM

John Dyer's image is very helpful:

 

http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/niv-verse-comparison.png

Posts 296
Jonathan West | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 13 2011 9:22 AM

Chris Lohroff:

This isn't exactly correct is it? 

In comparison to the NIV84 ... i.e. in quite a few verses the translation is different from the NIV84 ...

www.emmanuelecc.org

Page 2 of 3 (41 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS