Big problem with NIV and some modern translations

ByTheSpirit · Apr 18, 2015

So I was browsing the books of Moses as I watched the new Exodus movie (which I have no opinion on)...

I came acrossed a verse I love!

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/28-1.htm

Deuteronomy 28:1

NIV
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

ESV
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

Do you notice the difference?

Perhaps it is not such a big deal to most, my wife said something along the lines of well they both mention obeying commands so it should be fine, but what about God's VOICE? Looking into the base text there is a clear distinction between both God's voice and his commands...

Heb 6963 (qol) is God's voice
Heb 4687 (mitsvah) are God's commands

So why does the NIV, NLT, GWT, even the NASB leave God's VOICE out of this scripture, and others. This isn't a single isolated instance. Pretty disappointing to me...

What are your thoughts on this? Am I being to paranoid?

I am not saying the NIV or other such translations are being deceiving or sinister in their translation, merely that I think they made a major mistake. I am sure they probably just chalked both instances up to just God's commands and instead of making a longer statement that seemed obvious to them they combined them together under one phrase "God's commands". I don't see them as the same though. That is the problem to me. TO ME...

God's voice in this instance like the Rhema word of the NT, the spoken and living word. When he speaks to me personally, that is his voice.

God's commands are like the Logos word, in which what is transcribed and recorded. Scriptures are one example.

The two are similar but not the same.

SavedByGrace3 · Apr 18, 2015

You are correct, some translators will subconsciously insert their personal theology into their translating... therefore rendering the work a mere interpretation rather than a true translation.
I have found Young's to be about the best when it come to the correct rendering of verbs and tenses.

The ten commandments are a good example of what is called the vav conversive (sp?)

There is a difference between:

Thou shall not commit adultery
and
Thou dost not commit adultery

Can you see it?
The tense "dost not" means "do no." It is not telling you what you should not do, it is telling you what you do not do.

I do not commit adultery. I do not bare false witness. I do not covet.

These are proclamations given by God to be build into our hearts and minds.

"I have hid your word in my heart that I might not sin."

His word does not return to Him void!

Sanctify me with your word, thy word is truth.

FerventDisciple · Apr 18, 2015

There's for the most part nothing sinister about modern translations, but the electic methodology they follow is extremely misguided and isn't Christian. Most Bible scholars these days are not Christian as Dan Wallace freely admits yet the Christian ones follow their methods. The number one principle they follow is to treat the Bible like any other historical document, that speaks volumes.

I prefer the KJV as it was translated by believing men and was issued by the Church, not a publishing company after their own copyright. Incidentally copyrights present another issue with modern Bible translations, since each one must be different enough from another to get a copyright, you don't know when translators have chosen the word they believe is best or chosen a word to make it different. This wasn't a problem for the KJV translators, you can be sure each word is the one they thought was the best translation. They were also free from the influences of liberalism, political correctness, denominationalism, evolutionism etc which from one degree to another all translators and publishers are influenced by.

Modern translations aren't as great an advancement as some will have you think, neither is the KJV as obsolete and inaccurate as the same say it is.

cyberlizard · Apr 19, 2015

the NIV is to a degree paraphristic and often removes what it seems as superflous doublings within the text.

Steve

RDKirk · Apr 19, 2015

FerventDisciple said:
Incidentally copyrights present another issue with modern Bible translations, since each one must be different enough from another to get a copyright, you don't know when translators have chosen the word they believe is best or chosen a word to make it different.

No, this is not correct. Copyright is not based on a difference in works, however a difference in works may be a defense in court for a charge of copyright violation...but even that is not a definite defense.

Any number of different radio production companies could produce "Romeo and Juliet," word for word from the original script, and none of them would be considered a copyright violation, yet each would be copyrighted because none is a copy of any other...each one is directly and separately derived from the public domain original work.

If two photographers go out to a mountain, stand immediately next to one another, set up identical cameras in precisely identical ways and take a picture of the same scene at precisely the same moment--both photographs are copyrighted to each respective photographer.

However, if a third person sees either photograph and makes a photocopy of that photograph, that's a copyright violation.

So with bible translations, if all the translators are going back to public domain scriptures, then each translation is copyrighted even if they happen to be identical to one another...no "percentage of difference" is necessary.

RDKirk · Apr 19, 2015

cyberlizard said:
the NIV is to a degree paraphristic and often removes what it seems as superflous doublings within the text.

Steve

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation, ever. Anyone who speaks two languages can tell you that. All translations require a degree of interpretation and paraphrase.

cyberlizard · Apr 20, 2015

RDKirk said:
There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation, ever. Anyone who speaks two languages can tell you that. All translations require a degree of interpretation and paraphrase.

i never said there was such a thing as a word for word translation - you're putting words into my mouth.

Steve

stevenfrancis · Apr 20, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I was browsing the books of Moses as I watched the new Exodus movie (which I have no opinion on)...

I came acrossed a verse I love!

Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

Deuteronomy 28:1

NIV
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

ESV
And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

Do you notice the difference?

Perhaps it is not such a big deal to most, my wife said something along the lines of well they both mention obeying commands so it should be fine, but what about God's VOICE? Looking into the base text there is a clear distinction between both God's voice and his commands...

Heb 6963 (qol) is God's voice
Heb 4687 (mitsvah) are God's commands

So why does the NIV, NLT, GWT, even the NASB leave God's VOICE out of this scripture, and others. This isn't a single isolated instance. Pretty disappointing to me...

What are your thoughts on this? Am I being to paranoid?

I am not saying the NIV or other such translations are being deceiving or sinister in their translation, merely that I think they made a major mistake. I am sure they probably just chalked both instances up to just God's commands and instead of making a longer statement that seemed obvious to them they combined them together under one phrase "God's commands". I don't see them as the same though. That is the problem to me. TO ME...

God's voice in this instance like the Rhema word of the NT, the spoken and living word. When he speaks to me personally, that is his voice.

God's commands are like the Logos word, in which what is transcribed and recorded. Scriptures are one example.

The two are similar but not the same.

The best semi-modern to modern English bibles I've found for accuracy and study are Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE)

and the Knox Bible, (you can even read this one for free online, side by side with the Septuagint and the Vulgate, if those types of things matter to you, and you are linguistically inclined). This is my current favorite, though there are still many thees and thous. Not sure why those are such a hang up for so many. I think our early English language is beautiful.

Anyway - The best bible is a read bible, so find one that you will read, and that will not be a stumbling block for you.

The only one I'm aware of with a quite specific agenda, and that is easily detected as corrupt is one called the NWT (New World Translation), which was a bible "edited" or "translated" by the Watchtower society. But many of that group don't even read it anymore and have changed to either KJV, NKJV, and NIV. At least the last few I've had the pleasure of speaking with.

Good luck and God's blessings on finding a translation that works well for you, without causing concerns or suspicions. Whatever translation you do settle on, (and I recommend using several when studying so you can see a consensus translation emerge), I find it helpful to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before reading.

SavedByGrace3 · Apr 20, 2015

RDKirk said:
There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation, ever. Anyone who speaks two languages can tell you that. All translations require a degree of interpretation and paraphrase.

This is true. Download the ISA application and look at the word for word construction. It is very difficult to figure out what they are saying.
Thought for thought is about as close as you can get.

CGL1023 · Apr 20, 2015

To me the true bible is in the one in the original language. Once translation occurs there is degradation. God knew from the beginning this would occur and hasn't taken strong action against poor translations coming forth. When I think about the difference in bibles, I consider the situation akin to Paul's comments in Phil 1:17-18. Even though some preachers preach from impure motives, the word is still going forth. God declares His word is important to Him. Ps 138:2b and Jer 1:12

This should be true of the radio and tv preachers who, at times, take huge liberties with the word of God. It should apply to the difference in translations. The important thing is that the word is going forth and we can look to the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Unix · Apr 20, 2015

When translators go to the Greek and Hebrew, they are not looking at actual public domain Editions and they also make many additional assumptions and corrections which variant to use and how to use the apparatuses. To equip a team of translators with the licenses for Greek and Hebrew critical texts costs at least tens of thousands of $ for a small team. Then there are large teams as well and the texts provided to them total hundreds of thousands of $. Each translator has to have their own license - also because of how softwares are constructed - it would be nearly impossible and very difficult each day to share licenses:

RDKirk said:
So with bible translations, if all the translators are going back to public domain scriptures, then each translation is copyrighted even if they happen to be identical to one another...no "percentage of difference" is necessary.

Svt4Him · Apr 21, 2015

God is far out.

KJV: God is far removed.
NIV: God is cool.

Different rules of interpretation therefore both may be correct. The reason for so many translations is money, and the KJV is far from the best. To me the best one is one you read.

(Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man"

(Acts 22:9, KJV) - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

(Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

(Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

So if you apply the same judgement, the KJV clearly contradicts, so are you disappointed with that version now?

ByTheSpirit · Apr 21, 2015

Svt4Him said:
God is far out.

KJV: God is far removed.
NIV: God is cool.

Different rules of interpretation therefore both may be correct. The reason for so many translations is money, and the KJV is far from the best. To me the best one is one you read.

(Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man"

(Acts 22:9, KJV) - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

(Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

(Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

So if you apply the same judgement, the KJV clearly contradicts, so are you disappointed with that version now?

You are missing my point. I provided a link to Bible hub in my OP to the scripture in question. At that link, you can view an interlinear version or even the original-ish Hebrew.

There is clearly a distinction made between God's voice and his commands. Both are to be obeyed, but both are not the same. Hence the reason why I added that personal remark at the end about I view the voice of God as the Rhema (spoken) word which can be very personal in revelation etc. While the commands of God are like the Logos (written) word which we know as the scriptures etc.

You can disagree, that's fine. I understand translation philosophies and such. Just the ESV which uses the same manuscripts as the NIV and other more modern translations (if I am not mistaken) actually acknowledges both the voice of God and the commands as separate in the text, because in the Hebrew they are.

FerventDisciple · Apr 21, 2015

Svt4Him said:
God is far out.

KJV: God is far removed.
NIV: God is cool.

Different rules of interpretation therefore both may be correct. The reason for so many translations is money, and the KJV is far from the best. To me the best one is one you read.

(Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man"

(Acts 22:9, KJV) - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

(Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

(Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

So if you apply the same judgement, the KJV clearly contradicts, so are you disappointed with that version now?

It's the same Greek word in both verses (Strong's 191. akouó). The NASB also follows the NIV's lead and translates it understand in the latter verse, the 1 time it uses it to translate the word. Over 300 times the NASB translates it heard, hearing or hear. Seems to me this is an example of evangelical translators trying to cover up a difficulty in the text by translating the same word differently. The KJV translation is perfectly in line with the Greek, the NKJV also agrees.

Svt4Him · Apr 21, 2015

This divergent translation is not arbitrary. The word in question, ἀκούω (akouo), does not carry the narrow meaning assigned to the English word “hear.” In many cases, such as Acts 2:22 and 7:2, akouo means “listen” or “take heed.” Furthermore, even the ultra-literal KJV translates the same Greek word akouo as "understand” in 1 Corinthians 14:2. The men with Paul heard the sound, but they neither understood what they were hearing, nor did they take heed to it. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the above two passages.

Seems to me this is a perfect example of remembering the Bible was not an English book, therefore translations will all have strengths and weaknesses. It's far out if you think about it.

katerinah1947 · Apr 21, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I was browsing the books of Moses as I watched the new Exodus movie (which I have no opinion on)...

I came acrossed a verse I love!

Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

Deuteronomy 28:1

NIV
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

ESV
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

Do you notice the difference?

Perhaps it is not such a big deal to most, my wife said something along the lines of well they both mention obeying commands so it should be fine, but what about God's VOICE? Looking into the base text there is a clear distinction between both God's voice and his commands...

Heb 6963 (qol) is God's voice
Heb 4687 (mitsvah) are God's commands

So why does the NIV, NLT, GWT, even the NASB leave God's VOICE out of this scripture, and others. This isn't a single isolated instance. Pretty disappointing to me...

What are your thoughts on this? Am I being to paranoid?

I am not saying the NIV or other such translations are being deceiving or sinister in their translation, merely that I think they made a major mistake. I am sure they probably just chalked both instances up to just God's commands and instead of making a longer statement that seemed obvious to them they combined them together under one phrase "God's commands". I don't see them as the same though. That is the problem to me. TO ME...

God's voice in this instance like the Rhema word of the NT, the spoken and living word. When he speaks to me personally, that is his voice.

God's commands are like the Logos word, in which what is transcribed and recorded. Scriptures are one example.

The two are similar but not the same.

Hi,
Soft answer. They, we, you, or I hearing God's actual voice in any way, would be followed by us. Hearing a command by God would also be follwed by us.
Hard answer. They mean the same thing.
Hardest answer, your wife is right this time.
Even harder answer, you are being paranoid.
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

Alithis · Apr 21, 2015

katerinah1947 said:
Hi,
Soft answer. They, we, you, or I hearing God's actual voice in any way, would be followed by us. Hearing a command by God would also be follwed by us.
Hard answer. They mean the same thing.
Hardest answer, your wife is right this time.
Even harder answer, you are being paranoid.
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

-good soft hard & harder answer

... and hes right .the other guy was not getting the point

FerventDisciple · Apr 21, 2015

Svt4Him said:
This divergent translation is not arbitrary. The word in question, ἀκούω (akouo), does not carry the narrow meaning assigned to the English word hear. In many cases, such as Acts 2:22 and 7:2, akouo means listen or take heed. Furthermore, even the ultra-literal KJV translates the same Greek word akouo as "understand in 1 Corinthians 14:2. The men with Paul heard the sound, but they neither understood what they were hearing, nor did they take heed to it. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the above two passages.

Seems to me this is a perfect example of remembering the Bible was not an English book, therefore translations will all have strengths and weaknesses. It's far out if you think about it.

Thus why I went to the Greek word. Even the Interlinear on Bible hub has the same wording as the KJV/NKJV/YLT/HCSB here. It's obviously a possible meaning and most of the time the primary one.

Svt4Him · Apr 22, 2015

FerventDisciple said:
Thus why I went to the Greek word. Even the Interlinear on Bible hub has the same wording as the KJV/NKJV/YLT/HCSB here. It's obviously a possible meaning and most of the time the primary one.

Which is why there are errors in all translations, and using the KJV as the benchmark for all english translations is equally wrong.

Idioms, words and culture all change the meaning of words.

Yup, words change the meaning of words. Idioms, time and culture all change the meaning of words.

ByTheSpirit · Apr 22, 2015

Svt4Him said:
Which is why there are errors in all translations, and using the KJV as the benchmark for all english translations is equally wrong.

Idioms, words and culture all change the meaning of words.

Big problem with NIV and some modern translations

Come Lord Jesus

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Selah

the electric lizard returns

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

the electric lizard returns

Disciple

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

citizen of heaven

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Legend

Come Lord Jesus

Selah

Legend

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Selah

Legend

Come Lord Jesus

Similar threads