Question for pastors whose churches use the NIV

A nice use of Logos is to compare the NIV for Heb 2:9 to ESV, and then NA27. About 160 years ago Julia Smith translated the NT greek mainly for herself (along with the LXX and the the hebrew OT). Surprisingly quite a bit of hers matches the ESV but not the NIV.

Michael Sullivan said:

++ edited rant, just left this one point++

I am dissappointed with the new NIV and how a clearly messianic text like Hebrews 2:6-9 gets muddled up because of gender neutral language.

Worse than the NIV is the LXX and the book of Hebrews itself, which quotes Psalm 4 here, because the Greek in both the LXX and Hebrews 2:6-9 uses ανθρωπος for both אֱנוֹשׁ and אָדָם and thereby obscures the original.

ανθρωπος is a "common gender noun," and the Koinê-familiar readers of the LXX and Hebrews would likely have understood it to mean "mankind/person," and not "male person." Besides, Jesus primarily incarnated as a human. Had His incarnation focused on His maleness, He could not have redeemed the female half of the human race, for He saved what He assumed - our human nature, not our "male human nature."

                                                                              [^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

Eric Weiss said:

Michael Sullivan said:

++ edited rant, just left this one point++

I am dissappointed with the new NIV and how a clearly messianic text like Hebrews 2:6-9 gets muddled up because of gender neutral language.

 

Worse than the NIV is the LXX and the book of Hebrews itself, which quotes Psalm 4 here, because the Greek in both the LXX and Hebrews 2:6-9 uses ανθρωπος for both אֱנוֹשׁ and אָדָם and thereby obscures the original.

ανθρωπος is a "common gender noun," and the Koinê-familiar readers of the LXX and Hebrews would likely have understood it to mean "mankind/person," and not "male person." Besides, Jesus primarily incarnated as a human. Had His incarnation focused on His maleness, He could not have redeemed the female half of the human race, for He saved what He assumed - our human nature, not our "male human nature."

Eric, I really have no idea what you are talking about.  My point is that Hebrews clearly interpretes Psalm 8 in a Messainic way.  The gender neutral language (in this case using a plural instead of a singlular) confuses the verses.  A normal personal will not look at the word "they" and think, "Oh, this is just a gender neutral way of referring to a particular person: namely Christ"

Psalm 8 can be understood in two ways: referring collectively to all sons of Adam or specifically the one Son of Adam who would be the Savior.  Hebrews applies the passage specifically to Jesus, so that is the specific interpretation of the verse.

Also, the historical definition and usage of the english word "man" is, closer to Greek anthropos than aner.  It is similar to the German Mensch and, specifically, mann.  It is only in modern times that the English word "man" has been made to stress maleness over humanity in general.  The English use of "man" histroically had little to do with a partriochal society as it did with the simple development of the English from its Anglo-Saxon roots.  Language changes - I get that - but here is a place where gender neutral language changed the meaning of the text - not so much becasue it is gender neutral, but because of the common understanding of plural and singluar. 

Here is a quote concerning the Historical usage of "man" from my old 2005 MS Encarta dictionary (I know, not the best source, but it is the one that is handy)

"The etymologically primary sense of man is “human being, person,” and that is what it generally meant in Old English: the sexes were usually distinguished by wer “man” (which survives probably in werewolf) and wīf (source of modern English wife) or cwene “woman.” But during the Middle English and early modern English periods “male person” gradually came to the fore, and today man is decidedly on the decline (helped on its way by those who feel that the usage discriminates against women). "

It is nearly impossible for people, especially even Christians, to read and study Scriptures without bias.  People who translate do not escape this human flaw.  I have not spent any time with the new NIV, and while I prefer to use more formal translations, I do enjoy using the NIV (1984) to read an entire book or chapter prior to studying it in greater detail with other translations.  It reads very well and usually conveys accurate meaning. 

However, the problem is the same one reflected in this thread: so much of the discussion is no longer centered on the original language of the text, but on theological debate and there lies the danger of bias.  A formal approach does not completely remove bias either, but it does define the limits the well-meaning but humanly flawed translator can go with his/her interpretation, leaving the rest of the journey to the Bible teacher and student under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Hence teachers, not translators, were given to the Church.  Where would we be without translators?  But, in an effort to make the Bible more accessible, I do believe translators have usurped the sphere of the Bible teacher and "mudded" translation. 

One other thing I have noticed with more meaning based translation is an effort to harmonize Scriptures, and yet the original languages leaves to the student of the Word as one IVP resource has entitled it, "Hard Sayings."  While I do not doubt the sincerity of a vast team of dedicated individuals, I do know personally the biases and prejudices in each one of them.  Though there is indeed wisdom in the counsel of many, census building does not necessarily lead to better translation, just the most popular one, or worst, the one that offends the least.

Pat Flanakin said:

I have a suggestion for pastors using the NIV...use the NASB.

I second that!!! I have not heard anything about this new NIV 2011 so has the "Nearly Inspired Version" become less so? What is the problem with the NIV 2011?

Rosie Perera said:

If they try again in 20 years to re-introduce those changes, it will be a non-issue, I think.

So will faith in Jesus alone for salvation since that is also not politically correct and considered non-inclusive. Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of  their LORD shall be saved.” (NIV 2031)

"We plan to release a wide array of text and digital Bibles"

I read somewhere that the NIV 2011 was the first Bible to be released in "digital" format before the actual printing... was there a reason for this?

Not sure Thomas that the ESV/NASB is more literal than the KJV/NKJV as in the chart you supplied above. More like the chart below from Robert L. Thomas book 'How to choose a Bible Version'. Ted

 Here again I think the NCV is out of place and should be just below the NIV. Just because it's simple English doesn't mean if is less literal. To use an example; to the average reader which would convey the literal meaning of the word righteousness: "To be righteous" or "To be right before God or with God" ?

"Psalms 11:3  If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?"

Get a copy of L4 and or learn to read Hebrew and Greek! [:D]

Thomas Black said:

I am in contemplation of moving our church to ESV pew Bibles or perhaps NASB Pew Bibles.  If I do move to NASB Pew bibles no change will occur in my preaching. If I do jump on the ESV Bibles, I will probably change my preaching text to the ESV.

Maybe it's just me, but when I found a major error in the NASB 95 a few years ago, I then switched to the ESV. Both are literal, and the ESV is not as wooden.

Gary Butner said:

Question, I used the email from Logos to upgrade to the 2011  NIV on my notebook, but then when I attempted to use it again for my desktop I discovered it doesn;t work. Help!

You shouldn't need to use the email again to upgrade on a second machine. Whatever resources you have available on one installation of Logos should work on all of them. Have you tried typing "update resources" in the Logos command bar on your desktop? 

EDIT: Is it possible that you have "Use Internet" set to "no" (in Tools > Program Settings) on your desktop?

I'm curious too.  If you remember the scripture reference I would be able to read between the lines.

It was Exodus 21:22-25. It was updated after I spent a year working on a response I sent  to Lockman. They changed it in 2000. See the article on my website at www.errantskeptics.org..

Gary Butner said:

It was Exodus 21:22-25. It was updated after I spent a year working on a response I sent  to Lockman. They changed it in 2000. See the article on my website at www.errantskeptics.org..

Thanks Gary

I copied your response and pasted it into my Logos as a note file for future reference, hope you don't mind.

Whyndell Grizzard said:

I copied your response and pasted it into my Logos as a note file for future reference, hope you don't mind.

The article was not the response to LF, but it was close. 

I should also add that I contacted John Piper, because I was aware he had been working on the same issue for several years. He  was ecstatic, and immediately contacted Wayne Gruden, who was the editor for the RSV to ESV update. Wayne was aware of the problem, and immediately issued an update.

MJ. Smith said:

Is it common to argue translation from theology rather than textual point? I see your point but am curious as to what the thinking was behind the original translation.

I have the original response from the editorial committee dated 3/1/99. I was able to determine in advance their translation was based on the LXX, and not the Masoretic Text.  Clearly the translators of the LXX were closer to the autographs, however the MT carries the authority.  I will post part of their response. You will note I have removed certain items, which will identify of the publisher and book. I have also removed the Hebrew discussion. 

<p>

Thank you for your letter regarding the N translation of Exod 21:22 and

its implications for the important issue of abortion. We can confirm that

this verse has, in fact, been updated.

Let us begin by saying that the question you raise about "miscarriage" is

both fascinating and of great concern to us as well as to you, because we

agree with the pro-life position and are grieved to hear that some have used

the N’s translation of this verse to support the taking of life through

abortion.

The Editorial Board changed the phrase "has a miscarriage" to "gives birth

prematurely" and the the word "further" was deleted. We regret that this

passage was overlooked during work on the Update.

We are sure you wonder what led the translators of the N to render the

verse as they did originally, and for that matter we always research such

questions anyway because of the translators’ commitment to excellence and

sound theology. That is, we think it proper to assume that the translators

had a good reason for rendering a word or phrase in an unexpected way. It

turns out that there have been difficulties understanding this verse, going

back to the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was done

approximately in 250 BC.

(I have omitted a discussion of the Hebrew.)

Obviously this is quite complicated. What remains is to determine what

bearing the translation in the Greek Old Testament had on the N

translators’ decision. In the first place, The LF and the

translators maintain the position that only the original writings of the

biblical writers were inspired, and for the Old Testament these writings are

represented by the Hebrew, not by the Greek or by any other ancient

translation. However, ancient translations and versions are very valuable

sources in studying and translating the Old Testament because they provide

learned commentary for passages like Exod. 21:22 where there is difficulty

in diciphering or understanding the Hebrew. This is especially true for the

Greek Old Testament, since it consists of the work of ancient Hebrew and

Greek scholars who had access to very early Hebrew Old Testament

manuscripts, and as a result most translators use it to clarify difficult

passages. In translating the Exodus passage, the N translators simply

followed the practice of allowing the Greek Old Testament to throw light on

the Hebrew text. They understood the passage to refer to the miscarriage of

a malformed infant. Under such circumstances--from a purely judicial

viewpoint--a fine can be seen as a reasonable within the historical context

of ancient Israel.

Given all of these details, the criticisms that the N is guilty of "an

unfortunate mistranslation of the Hebrew original," etc. is misstated. To

add that the "further" inserted by the N is not implied by the Hebrew and

that there is "no ambiguity here whatever" shows a lack of research and

courtesy. The word "further" is entirely appropriate if one follows the

context and historical interpretation, and the possibility of ambiguity is

documented historically. The translators who originally worked on this

portion of the N not only studied the context in great detail, they also

did their homework to a greater degree than other critics seems to have

done.  (Note the anger)

For these reasons, our recommendation for a change was not as easy a

decision as you might guess. To take the view that the context has to do

with premature birth and that the "harm" can be both to the parents and the

baby is to reject the views of ancient experts who are closer to the

original scriptures than we. This is fine and good if we are certain that

we are right and they were wrong, but it is important to arrive at that

conclusion through objective means. It would be wrong to make our

conclusions based on the fact that the ancient interpretation is inadequate

for the political or even moral purposes of our day. However, it does seem

to us that the ancient scholars may very well have erred in assuming the

death of the child, and that the verses which follow work equally well for

either interpretation (i.e. injury to the mother alone or to both mother and

child). Since the view that verse 22 refers to a premature birth is both

reasonable and supported by biblical scholars, we think the change is

justified. The word "further" could be appropriate for either

interpretation (the premature birth itself being an injury), but it is not

needed in the understanding of a premature birth and thus can be removed.

If you have any other questions or comments please contact us at your

earliest convenience. Be sure to visit us again real soon!