Flaws within the NIV translation?

[SummaScriptura]

Heaven and earth could pass away by then.

 

[calluna]

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.

There are no great translations. At best, a translation can be a pale imitation of the original, of the power and subtlety of which the vast majority of people are (blissfully?) unaware.

There is no translation in print that does not cause a saint to despise it as a tainted thing. Even if a translator is an honest, decent fellow, somehow his publisher will make him seem a twister.

 

[scriptures]

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.

It seems more and more people are in favor of a proper name than the traditional one....I hope our translators will do something about it..... I prefer ASV for that matter......

I am not so familiar with ESV..... but yes.... Col 1.15 was properly translated.....

(Col 1:15 ESV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

 

[scriptures]

I am more concern with What NIV had done to the Bible.... ALTERATION.......

1. Col 1.15 "of all" was replaced by "over all".....
2. "name" was removed from John 17.26.....
3. "worshiped" or "obeisance" was removed from Mat. 18.26....

and more to come....

 

[SummaScriptura]

I am more concern with What NIV had done to the Bible.... ALTERATION.......

1. Col 1.15 "of all" was replaced by "over all".....
2. "name" was removed from John 17.26.....
3. "worshiped" or "obeisance" was removed from Mat. 18.26....

and more to come....

There is no doubt the NIV is a more dynamic, less formal translation in this instance; however, the NIV may be more accurate in this case, especially when there is so much misunderstanding about the English word "name" as it is used in translations of the New Testament. The NIV says, "I have made you known", and that is exactly what is meant, NOT the use of the proper noun "Jehovah". The passage DOES not mean, I have made your name, Jehovah, known to them and will make it known.

fin.

 

[Radagast]

I am more concern with What NIV had done to the Bible.... ALTERATION.......

1. Col 1.15 "of all" was replaced by "over all".....
2. "name" was removed from John 17.26.....
3. "worshiped" or "obeisance" was removed from Mat. 18.26....

and more to come....

SummaScriptura has discussed John 17:26.

For Col 1:15, it depends on how you interpret the Greek genitive case in this sentence, whether you read "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." with the NIV or "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." with the ESV.

For Matt 18:26, the NIV's "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.'" is probably the best translation of the Greek.

 

[scriptures]

There is no doubt the NIV is a more dynamic, less formal translation in this instance; however, the NIV may be more accurate in this case, especially when there is so much misunderstanding about the English word "name" as it is used in translations of the New Testament. The NIV says, "I have made you known", and that is exactly what is meant, NOT the use of the proper noun "Jehovah". The passage DOES not mean, I have made your name, Jehovah, known to them and will make it known.

fin.

The problem with NIV is the manner of translation used.... By abandoning literalness... it has produced a Bible with so much alteration and removal of key words used by writers of the NT......

 

[scriptures]

SummaScriptura has discussed John 17:26.

For Col 1:15, it depends on how you interpret the Greek genitive case in this sentence, whether you read "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." with the NIV or "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." with the ESV.

For Matt 18:26, the NIV's "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.'" is probably the best translation of the Greek.

If a christian wants to have a deep study of the Bible....NIV is not recommended,....By abandoning literalness....it has produced a Bible totally different from what the NT writers really meant.....

 

[Radagast]

If a christian wants to have a deep study of the Bible....NIV is not recommended,....By abandoning literalness....it has produced a Bible totally different from what the NT writers really meant.....

I don't believe that is true. For the NT at least, the NIV is closer to the original Greek than most other translations. The ESV will sometimes be better, but I still prefer the NIV.

And in following the original Greek, the NIV usually expresses exactly what the NT writers really meant.

 

[oldsage]

I don't believe that is true. For the NT at least, the NIV is closer to the original Greek than most other translations. The ESV will sometimes be better, but I still prefer the NIV.

And in following the original Greek, the NIV usually expresses exactly what the NT writers really meant.

Yes, I have to agree. While I do not really like the style of translation of the NIV I do think they are trying to be faithful to what the author's intents were.

I would not use it as a word study bible but I think it is a good reading bible and conveys the message accurately.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, I have to agree. While I do not really like the style of translation of the NIV I do think they are trying to be faithful to what the author's intents were.

I would not use it as a word study bible but I think it is a good reading bible and conveys the message accurately.

Agreed.

 

[Radagast]

...I think it is a good reading bible and conveys the message accurately.

Yeah. Some people prefer the ESV, but I still like my NIV. And the only way to decide if it's a good translation is to check it against the Greek, as I do (and it seems you read Greek as well?)

Everyone should steer clear of versions edited and altered by religious groups that have an agenda to sell.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Everyone should steer clear of versions edited and altered by religious groups that have an agenda to sell.

Like this one? Though all translations exhibit theological suppositions, this is the only one I know that evidences a clear attempt to deceive the reader.

[c]

[/c]

 

[oldsage]

Yeah. Some people prefer the ESV, but I still like my NIV. And the only way to decide if it's a good translation is to check it against the Greek, as I do (and it seems you read Greek as well?)

Everyone should steer clear of versions edited and altered by religious groups that have an agenda to sell.

I like the ESV and use it often. I have several translations of the bible as well which I do research when studying. While I always have issues with translations because I do not believe any to be perfect, I do think most convey the word of God faithfully within their translation philosophy. Everyone should read the editors translation philosophy so they know where they are coming from when they translate. Yes, I do read Greek, so it helps.

As I said in a previous post, I do believe translations should be done in committee of different denominations, this way it can keep out some of the translation bias. It is impossible to remove it completely but it can curve it some.

 

[Radagast]

... While I always have issues with translations because I do not believe any to be perfect, I do think most convey the word of God faithfully within their translation philosophy...

That's an important point: translation philosophy. For example:

• Should a translation rearrange the order of words in a sentence? (most translations do)
• Should the English sentence have roughly the same number of words as the Greek?
• Should ambiguous Greek be turned into ambiguous English, or should one option be in the text and the other in the footnote?

It's worth distinguishing between a translation philosophy you don't like, and a translation that does a bad job even from the point of view of it's philosophy.

"Cats and dogs" is a good example. The Biblical equivalent is "sheep and goats," and most translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, KJV, etc) do have "sheep and goats" in Matt 25:33.

 

[wildboar]

I don't think that translations should be woodenly literal. And every translation is an interpretation to some degree. The problem that comes into play though is that the less literal a translation is, the more the translator has to interpret the text and the more we have to rely on a certain person's ability to interpret the text accurately. Also, the NIV hired a style editor to smooth out the differences in style between the various Biblical authors. I disagree with the idea that we should stylistic differences.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I don't believe that is true. For the NT at least, the NIV is closer to the original Greek than most other translations. The ESV will sometimes be better, but I still prefer the NIV.

And in following the original Greek, the NIV usually expresses exactly what the NT writers really meant.

I've found that the NIV is accurate for the original Hebrew in the OT as well.


LDG

 

[Radagast]

From the CF SoF:

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), by the Power of the Holy Spirit was born of a Virgin (Luke 1:35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1:2; John 1:18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10:42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1:11).

 

[Radagast]

"It is raining cats and dogs"

A good example gets a mention recently in Monday with Mounce. How should the Greek m&#275; genoito be translated (in Romans 6:2, for example)? It means a very strong no!, but is impossible to translate literally. Some solutions are:

• "By no means!" (ESV & NIV).
• "God forbid." (KJV).
• "Certainly not!" (NKJV)
• "May it never be!" (NASB).
• "Of course not!" (NLT).
• "No, we should not!" (CEV)
• "Out of the question!" (NJB).
• "I should hope not!" (The Message)

The KJV is probably the least literal, since God isn't mentioned in the original. Mounce suggests (more or less tongue in cheek), "under no circumstances, nohow, nowhere, over my dead body, you&#8217;ve got to be kidding me, that&#8217;s absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, do I look that stupid, give me a break!" I think the ESV/NIV, NKJV, and NJB all have good translations.

 

[oldsage]

A good example gets a mention recently in Monday with Mounce. How should the Greek m&#275; genoito be translated (in Romans 6:2, for example)? It means a very strong no!, but is impossible to translate literally. Some solutions are:

• "By no means!" (ESV & NIV).
• "God forbid." (KJV).
• "Certainly not!" (NKJV)
• "May it never be!" (NASB).
• "Of course not!" (NLT).
• "No, we should not!" (CEV)
• "Out of the question!" (NJB).
• "I should hope not!" (The Message)

The KJV is probably the least literal, since God isn't mentioned in the original. Mounce suggests (more or less tongue in cheek), "under no circumstances, nohow, nowhere, over my dead body, you’ve got to be kidding me, that’s absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, do I look that stupid, give me a break!" I think the ESV/NIV, NKJV, and NJB all have good translations.

Yeah, this is a great example of the difficulties in translation. Each person has a certain way to say their strongest "NO!" And a literal just won't cut it in this circumstance.