Page 3 of 3 (52 items) < Previous 1 2 3
This post has 51 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 5
Stephen Douglas Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 27 2013 7:04 PM

NIV11 is 5% altered. By that I mean 1 in every 20 verses has been changed. That does not even take into account the punctuation changes. It is a new translation when it comes to my life long Bible memory work. How long before they make enough changes that it cannot even be considered a reliable translation at all? Seriously, are we going to just let Biblica tell folks like Biblia/Logos that they can't supply people with the translation they've loved for over 30 years? Logos, please stand up to Biblica/NYBible Society/ Zondervan and demand to supply your users with the translation we trust and want. NIV 11 has been "dumbed down" to compete financially with the NLT. Are we going to let money determine what we receive as God's word. Already scholars are flocking away from NIV11 to the ESV. Devotionalists are flocking away to the Holman and the NLT. Help us out Logos and get a reliable NIV back for us. (I've already taken my request to Biblica directly several times. Once I even challenged them to prove me wrong about their financial motivations and release the copyright for NIV84 into the public domain.) I asked nicely, but it might be time for the public to make demands.

Posts 5
Stephen Douglas Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 27 2013 7:10 PM

Bible Gateway has caved in as well. Somewhere in the Billy Graham Library there is supposed to be access to NIV84. If anyone can find it before I do, please post

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 3:21 AM

Stephen Douglas Scott:
How long before they make enough changes that it cannot even be considered a reliable translation at all?
I believe the NIV11 is a better translation of NIV84.

Posts 142
Michael Sullivan | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 4:28 AM


Acts 1:16:  ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί . . .

Literal translation: "Men, brothers. . ."

NIV 11: "Brothers and sisters"

NIV 11 Footnote: "The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God's family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15."

In regard to this verse the NIV text and footnote are wrong.  I agree that adelphoi can mean "brothers and sisters", but not here.  Not when preceded by aner.

I know that many consider this a "minor" thing, but I have a really big problem with the way the NIV 11 translated this verse - especially the footnote.  When asked about, Moo defended their translation with the rational that women were most likely present.  In my opinion that strengthens to argument that this verse is not referring the brothers and sisters, but that Peter was addressing the men of that congregation.

In short - I do not believe the NIV is a better translation.  It has some better sections, but others that are not so good.

BTW - the NIV 11 is the only Bible I know of that translates Acts 1:16 "Brothers and sisters".  If you can find any other translation that does this, let me know, but I have not found any.

 

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 4:41 AM

Michael Sullivan:
BTW - the NIV 11 is the only Bible I know of that translates Acts 1:16 "Brothers and sisters".  If you can find any other translation that does this, let me know, but I have not found any.
Three of my top five bibles in L5 translated the phrase as friends; the first being the NRSV.

Posts 1
Bill Mullen | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 5:54 AM

And, it is clear to me that Zondervan and IBS have essentially colluded to salvage their decision a while back to supplant the NIV with the TNIV and have chosen to use the NIV11, which is a blend of those, to accomplish that. They both lost money on the TNIV; plus are determined to force their TNIV related agenda. This is plainly an arrogant, almost narcissistic action. I know of at least one of the key NT scholar contributors who, along with several of his collegues at the seminary where he teaches bought into feminist movement several years ago, who was a driving force in the TNIV and NIV11 translations. I am convinced after having confronted them with that point back then and watched them move toward the emergent movement, that this is the underlying motivation for both the failed TNIV and NIV11. Otherwise IBS and Zondervan would not have gone to NIV11 and spent the money and resources they have over the past several years. Zondervan made a clear decision over twenty years ago to put income and profits ahead of sound doctrine and theology. All one has to do is look at the long list of fluff they publish.

Posts 22372
Forum MVP
Graham Criddle | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 5:56 AM

Michael Sullivan:
BTW - the NIV 11 is the only Bible I know of that translates Acts 1:16 "Brothers and sisters".  If you can find any other translation that does this, let me know, but I have not found any.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 6:10 AM

Michael Sullivan:
BTW - the NIV 11 is the only Bible I know of that translates Acts 1:16 "Brothers and sisters".  If you can find any other translation that does this, let me know, but I have not found any.

Expanded Bible: New Testament => http://www.logos.com/product/8805/the-expanded-bible-new-testament

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 5572
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 9:18 AM

Michael Sullivan:
In regard to this verse the NIV text and footnote are wrong.  I agree that adelphoi can mean "brothers and sisters", but not here.  Not when preceded by aner.

Looking through the examples where the phrase "andres adelphoi" occurs, it's not clear that this phrase is intended to be an address exclusively to men. For example, Acts 13:26, 38, Paul speaking in the Synagogue uses this phrase, 2X. Because of the way the Synagogue was organized, the women being restricted to the back or sides, it seems understandable that Paul was speaking to the men. But it seems unlikely that he is speaking to them exclusively - that is, he is intentionally communicating to only the men, implying that what he is saying does not apply to any women who might be listening. The same is likely to be true in Acts 1:16, IMHO.

If we look at Acts 2:14, 22, we see a similar phrase Andres Ioudaioi  and Andres Israelitai. It seems unlikely that "Andres" is an address intended to exclude women from listening in on the sermon. In verse 22, where there is no other qualifier, it seems even more likely that the phrase translated "men of Israel" is an address intended to included the women who are there as well.

I notice that the phrase andres adelphoi does not occur outside of Acts and only once in the LXX (that I found - in 4Macc 8:19). It seems to be a common formal address to a crowd, occuring in Acts most commonly in the context of a synagogue (though obviously in other gatherings as well). One wonders whether in this case Peter is simply using the common address as a way of beginning this speech. When someone begins a speech with the word "Friends," we would not assume that the speaker is actually friends with everyone in the audience. Simply that he is addressing them as a friend would address a friend. In this case, we might not assume that Peter is intending to speak exclusively to those in the room with a "Y" chromosome, but merely speaking as men and brothers speak with each other.

Now, I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else that "Andres adelphoi" cannot or should not be taken in it's exclusive sense here or elsewhere. But I would suggest that it's not self-evident that this phrase should be taken that way here, nor is it self-evident that the best way to render that phrase in a way that would have the same meaning in our culture as in Peter's is how the LEB vs. the NIV11 translates it. In my view, there is good reason to translate the phrase in a way that does not render it as an address exclusively to men (i.e., specifically not to women). As I examine the other uses of the phrase in Acts, the context apparently includes women in the audience who apparently did respond to the message addressed to "andres adelphoi" (cf. Acts 2:41, 13:43,ff.).

As for aner, there are at least 2X in the NT where the word should not be rendered as exclusively male: Rom.4:8 (cf.Ps.32:32=LXX 31:2), and James 1:12. There's also one time when andridzomai, should be understood to include women (1Cor.16:13). While one should not build a rule on an exception, the exceptions do demonstrate a non-exclusive sense to aner that we should take into account in our translations.

BTW, it's probably not a good idea to debate the merits of one translation over another. However, using Logos, I explored your hypothesis (that adelphoi should not be translated as brothers and sisters when preceded by aner) and conclude that the hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny - at least not mine. If you'd like to use Logos to challenge my conclusion, here's my search criteria (use in any Logos reverse interlinear): <Lemma = lbs/el/ἀνήρ> <Lemma = lbs/el/ἀδελφός> (this gets only one irrelevant hit: in 1Cor 7:14).

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 28 2013 10:16 AM

Peace, Richard!           *smile*                                         Beautiful!    Well-written, indeed!                      Thank you so very kindly for sharing with your Brothers and Sisters on this Forum!                           

             Edit:   Richard, for your information, I am very fond of and appreciate the young pastor Michael and truly do I appreciate his enthusiasm for the Lord!   *smile*

It so happens that one of his grandfathers was my German Professor in College in 1954!           One of the best courses I ever had!  I often thank God for that tremendous experience!

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 1
Andrew Chapman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 9 2014 2:44 AM

'nor is it self-evident that the best way to render that phrase in a way that would have the same meaning in our culture as in Peter's is how the LEB vs. the NIV11 translates it'

But he addressed the people in that culture. The reader should be allowed to know what he actually said, faithfully translated into English. ἀνήρ means man, and must be translated as such.

Very probably women did respond to his message. But that doesn't mean that Peter addressed them, and we shouldn't pretend that he did.

Andrew

Posts 5572
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 9 2014 8:22 AM

Andrew Chapman:

'nor is it self-evident that the best way to render that phrase in a way that would have the same meaning in our culture as in Peter's is how the LEB vs. the NIV11 translates it'

But he addressed the people in that culture. The reader should be allowed to know what he actually said, faithfully translated into English. ἀνήρ means man, and must be translated as such.

Very probably women did respond to his message. But that doesn't mean that Peter addressed them, and we shouldn't pretend that he did.

Andrew

As you probably know the NIV (both 84 and 11) try to translate the meaning of the message communicated, so that what we read is as close as possible to what the original writers meant to communicate. There are many examples where a literal translation would not work well in English. I stumbled across one of these this weekend in reading Philemon. In Philemon 12 Paul says of Onesimus that he is "my heart." But that's not what the Greek says. In Greek it says that Onesimus is "my bowels." In Rev. 2:23 Jesus is said to search minds and hearts in most translations, but literally it's kidneys and hearts. In both of those cases it is uses that determines the meaning. 

The two most important questions we ask in translating is 1) what does it say; 2) what did it mean to those who first wrote it for those who would first hear it. Sometimes this is a judgment call, as in the case with the above example. Whether the NIV11 rendered this the best possible way is a matter of debate (I might have chosen differently with this verse too). Whether this translation changes the actual meaning or message in some way is not self-evident--at least not to me.

BTW, though I prefer the NIV84 as well, I've found the NIV11 does a better job in several places than the NIV84. One of those is Philemon 6 (which is a very, very difficult passage to translate). I also strongly prefer the way the NIV11 reverts to translating sarx as "flesh" vs. as "sinful nature."

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Page 3 of 3 (52 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS