Flaws within the NIV translation?

[Radagast]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I tried to do some of my own research on Google, but the search is flooded with heavily bias pro-KJV-only responses.

Well, I think the NIV does a very good (though not perfect) job of translation. The only major criticisms of the NIV are from the KJV-only group.

There are many people who prefer the more "word for word" translation of the ESV, but that's more an issue of translational philosophy than anything else.

One subtle but important point on the NIV is that the footnotes are part of the translation: they shouldn't be ignored. Where the Greek is ambiguous, some translations give you an ambiguous English translation, while the NIV tends to give you (in clear English) the two options.

 

[ebia]

Well, I think the NIV does a very good (though not perfect) job of translation. The only major criticisms of the NIV are from the KJV-only group.
There are many people who prefer the more "word for word" translation of the ESV, but that's more an issue of translational philosophy than anything else.

Um, that's not quite true. The only people saying the NIV is dreadful are pretty much the KJV people, but there are a number of very good New Testament scholars who regard the NIV as a less than first quality translation relative to its popularity, independent of one's preference for dynamic equivalence or more literal models. It's not the the NIV is a bad translation (over all), just that it isn't a great translation.

 

[Radagast]

... there are a number of very good New Testament scholars who regard the NIV as a less than first quality translation relative to its popularity, independent of one's preference for dynamic equivalence or more literal models.

I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said, but to which scholars do you refer?

The NIV is certainly not perfect, but it's the best translation I've found so far. What would you recommend instead?

 

[Jig]

The NIV is certainly not perfect, but it's the best translation I've found so far.

For both readability and accurateness, I'd have to say the ESV trumps the NIV.

 

[Radagast]

For both readability and accurateness, I'd have to say the ESV trumps the NIV.

Several people I respect have said the same thing to me. Their reason is generally a translational philosophy that favours a word-for-word approach.

My philosophy of translation is to preserve as much of the meaning as possible, and consequently when I compare to the Greek, I think the NIV does a fair job (and the NIV is certainly far more readable).

Let's pick the test verse I just used on another thread (Eph 4:1):

Greek: παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε

Literal: I urge you then (I, the prisoner in the Lord) worthily to walk according to the calling with which you have been called.

NIV: As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.

ESV: I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.

Both the NIV and ESV rearrange word order a little for clarity. I think the NIV is clearer with "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you" -- although to some it might suggest that the "then" refers only to being "a prisoner for the Lord", whereas actually it refers to Chapter 3.

I can see why the NIV translates "walk" as "live a life" (and for new Christians that's probably clearer), but I would personally go with "walk" as the ESV does. Losing that imagery of "walking" impoverishes us, and makes old hymns like this one confusing.

I think the NIV wins again with "of the calling you have received" -- the ESV's "of the calling to which you have been called" seems unnecessarily clumsy (expanding 4 Greek words to 9 English ones).

That's two readability points to the NIV, and a big imagery point to the ESV.

In summary:

• translators have to make choices
• the ESV and NIV make different choices
• both are good
• neither is perfect
• I slightly prefer the NIV
• not everyone agrees with me, and they have some good reasons on their side

 

[ebia]

I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said, but to which scholars do you refer?

+Tom Wright for one. There's some other names lurking that I can't bring to mind at the moment.

The NIV is certainly not perfect, but it's the best translation I've found so far.

I respect your opinion. I responded not to win an argument but to try to ensure both perspectives on the question were accurately respresented. There are those who are quite happy with the NIV (including, presumably, most of those who worked on it). And there are those who think it misses the mark a little too often.

What would you recommend instead?[/quote]
Like I said, NRSV or ESV for accuracy (each has its strengths and weaknesses, ESV is very good at using the same English word where the same greek/hebrew word occurs so that echos are picked up that are often lost in other translations) or NJB for literary quality. Or Tom Wright's own ones for a readable New Testament.

I don't argue that the NIV is readable (but not great literature) and I don't object to dynamic equivalence though I wouldn't choose it for close study. On those scores it's not a bad compromise (as all translation is compromise). For accuracy it's probably no better or worse on balance than the NJB (which is sometimes brilliant and sometimes quite strange in it's choices), but I find it rather dull from a literary point of view.

I have to say that I wouldn't pick any one version unless forced to. If I were forced, I would take ESV or NJB (or quite a few others) over NIV, but for different reasons. NIV wouldn't be bottom of the list, but it wouldn't be at the top either. If I were recommending to someone else it would depend upon the person I was recommending it for.

 

[Radagast]

I responded not to win an argument but to try to ensure both perspectives on the question were accurately respresented. There are those who are quite happy with the NIV (including, presumably, most of those who worked on it). And there are those who think it misses the mark a little too often.

Well, I've tried to be balanced in what I said. And (to be honest), if I wasn't reading the NIV in parallel with the Greek, I might lean more towards the ESV than I do now (although there are certainly problems with the ESV too).

using the same English word where the same greek/hebrew word occurs so that echos are picked up that are often lost in other translations

I agree this is important, and good footnoting helps with this.

I don't argue that the NIV is readable (but not great literature)

Well, if you want great literature, take the good old KJV, difficult to read though it is!

as all translation is compromise

Indeed it is. Umberto Eco has a wonderful book on translation called Mouse or Rat? discussing this, by the way.

 

[revanneosl]

One of the problems with the NIV is that it pretty routinely translate
anqropos as "man" rather than "person" and anqropoi as "men" rather than "people".

 

[DD2008]

One of the problems with the NIV is that it pretty routinely translate
anqropos as "man" rather than "person" and anqropoi as "men" rather than "people".

Is that important to you? Those translations into inclusive language are the flagships of the NRSV. I have heard many complaints against the NRSV for doing that. I have never heard from someone who rejected the NIV or any other version on the grounds that it doesn't have inclusive language. Are you maintaining that the NIV is a flawed translation because of this?

Very interesting.

 

[revanneosl]

One of the problems with the NIV is that it pretty routinely translate
anqropos as "man" rather than "person" and anqropoi as "men" rather than "people".

Is that important to you? Those translations into inclusive language are the flagships of the NRSV. I have heard many complaints against the NRSV for doing that. I have never heard from someone who rejected the NIV or any other version on the grounds that it doesn't have inclusive language. Are you maintaining that the NIV is a flawed translation because of this?

Very interesting.

It's something that bugs me - but not enough to make me quit using the NIV. It also bugs me that the NRSV translates androi as "men and women" or "people" and adelfoi as "brothers and sisters". NIV inserts sexist language that isn't there in the original text. NRSV takes out the sexist language that actually is in the original text.

They're both annoying.

 

[DD2008]

It's something that bugs me - but not enough to make me quit using the NIV. It also bugs me that the NRSV translates androi as "men and women" or "people" and adelfoi as "brothers and sisters". NIV inserts sexist language that isn't there in the original text. NRSV takes out the sexist language that actually is in the original text.

They're both annoying.

Which version are you the most comfortable with and use as your primary? I assume you use the NIV as you said above that the flaws you believe are in the inclusive translations are not enough to make you stop using it.

 

[revanneosl]

It's NRSV I read when I say my morning Office. When I'm working with a text for sermon preparation I read both NIV and NRSV. I rarely resort to the original languages because I trust the experts who did the translations. Their command of koine is better than mine, to be sure.

 

[DD2008]

It's NRSV I read when I say my morning Office. When I'm working with a text for sermon preparation I read both NIV and NRSV. I rarely resort to the original languages because I trust the experts who did the translations. Their command of koine is better than mine, to be sure.

Very interesting. I assume you have rejected the ESV in favor of the NIV and the NRSV? Do you believe the NIV holds more accord with the original manuscripts than the ESV?

 

[scriptures]

The word Lord for YHWH in our English versions is an error.....

 

[Radagast]

The word Lord for YHWH in our English versions is an error.....

I think you mean LORD (all capitals).

This is not an error, it's a translation choice (one that not everyone agrees with). It can cause confusion with Lord vs LORD and in, for example, Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." However, once you know what it means, it makes perfect sense.

 

[scriptures]

Radagast, the translation choice for YHWH was wrong.....why don't they just follow the example set by ASV? It is much better than hiding the name of God to the reading public.....

 

[Radagast]

Radagast, the translation choice for YHWH was wrong.....why don't they just follow the example set by ASV? It is much better than hiding the name of God to the reading public.....

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the translation choice is traditional, and is the result of adopting the Jewish reluctance to spell out the name of God (consequently we're not 100% certain what the vowels in YHWH should be).

LORD (all caps) is the most common and is used in the NIV, NASB, ESV, KJV (mostly), and NKJV.

The ASV uses JEHOVAH consistently, and the KJV sometimes does too.

YHWH is used in the NASB and NKJV in footnotes, while the NLT uses YAHWEH.

None of the options is free from the need for some explanation.

 

[scriptures]

Aside from using LORD for YHWH.......

Col 1:15 was translated as " firstborn over all creation" rather than the more accurate " firstborn of all creation".......

 

[SummaScriptura]

Aside from using LORD for YHWH.......

Col 1:15 was translated as " firstborn over all creation" rather than the more accurate " firstborn of all creation".......

I agree. The traditional use, which they all use, should be dropped in favor of the proper name.

BTW, the ESV has Col. 1:15 right.

 

[X=?]

OT slightly - It was my urge to want to get closer to a true word of God that I have begun to learn Greek so that I can read a Greek Bible in order to get a so close as true understanding.

I do own a NIV which has demolished over time and years, as well as a New Living Translation and two Greek New Testement Bibles. Once I've conquered the Greek learning and reading mountain I plan to move to the old testement and some of the older languages Hebrew and Aramaic.

Hopefully this forum will still be around when thats all done.