NIV and TNIV issues.

[Smurfboy]

Hello, my name is Darnell Clay and I am a new Christian (about a year). I have gone to Bible Study Universe (BSU) for about 2 years and I have had spent a lot of times studying into the Bible in order to have closer relationship with my savior, Lord Jesus Christ. My grammar is not the best English, due to the hearing loss I have since birth. For the past a year, Lord Jesus Christ has taught me many different values and has changed my life completely. Although I'd love to testify about how I got saved, I really need your help on NIV and TNIV that I'm having issue with. Before you make any further comment, I want to give a little background on how I got confused with NIV and TNIV, so you can get the idea of where I'm at.

When my friend, who considered himself as Jehovah's Witnesses, invited me over to his church about several months ago, and while the preacher was speaking of Jesus, I started to realize that their teaching of Watchtowers are completely differ from what the Bible/Christianity has taught. I was confused and prayed to God that He will lead me to seek the truth. In Deuteronomy 13:14, God stated that "...you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly," and so, I devoted my time to do that. So I careful analyzed the information of background on Watchtower and their beliefs; and to my extremely surprised, the difference beliefs between Watchtower (WT) and the Bible was totally opposed. "What's the world coming to?!," I thought. After studying on WT for about a month, I asked my friend to discuss about that on weekend and he agreed to do so.

Well, this is where we end up talked about Greek language in the Bible. They're using their own Bible of New World Translate (NWT), which was made by about 7 Jehovah's Witnesses in early 1950's and 1980's. Basically on what we have discussed so far, he was saying that the NWT is consider reliable and are as accurate as original Greek/Hebrew language and with that, I disagreed. I've finished search more information on 7 people (mostly about Charles Taze Russell, Joseph F. Rutherford, and Nathan Knorr) who has started the whole new NWT, and as far as I'm concerned, they aren't as expert as Greek scholars who actually knows a lot about Greek/Hebrew. Even Rutherford admitted at the court in early 1950's that he does not know much about Greek/Hebrew and that, alone, proved me more than enough to consider that the NWT are not reliable and should stay away at any cost.

I even pointed that out to my friend and yet, it doesn't ring him any bell. Even I mentioned about the presidents from WT and a lot of mistakes that they have made through public, he believes that knowing about their teaching is insignificant and I was truly astounding by that. Even in the Bible that comes from the very word of God stated that if ANY false prophet predicts something that is not entire true, then their words should take with a grain of salt. Amazingly, my friend ignored that and I was very sadden, angry, and disappointed in him. I KNOW that he is smart enough to realize about that.

So about a week later, he wrote me in a letter, concerning NIV and TNIV. In his argument, he stated that NIV is not reliable and so are TNIV and with that, I should not use that (I use NIV all the time). Despite the fact that I know NIV is reliable since most well-known Christians use this, I studied carefully into TNIV and noticed that they have changed several words i.e. 'man' change to 'they', and so forth, compare with NIV. Now, this part got me confused! So, people, I really need your help and tell me what do you think of NIV and TNIV?

I just wanted you all to know, first of all, that I do not support TNIV, even though I'm using NIV, the very same people that made both of them. For one reason, our Lord Jesus Christ stated that we should not change/add any words to the Bible and He mentioned that on several occasion. Speak of add/change, I just used King James Version compare with NIV and some of the words in NIV are missing! Example:

Luke 4:4 (NIV): "Jesus answered, "it is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"
Luke 4:4 (KJV): "And Jesus answered, 'It is written: That Man sall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'"

Where's the words "every word of God" in NIV? I'm surprise it's not there. Sorry for a long post but I must know the answer about this issue and I REALLY appreciated your time reading it. Thank you for time, as I'm looking forward to get to know you all.

Thank you.

In Lord Jesus Christ,
Darnell Clay

 

[bluemarkus]

the best bible translation is the one god can speak the best through to you

every one has a special strong side and weak side.

for overall impression and reading a lot, or to keep the language common language,
NIV and TNIV should be ok.
to dive and dig, i´d go for NASB.
for a heritage, take KJV.
if you need someone to speak clearly to you though you´re tired --> amplified
for youth ministry: paraphrases and more open translations

great to be reminded that the bible is not only words and letters,but life, blood, sweat,
dust, tears, life ---> picture bible

regards

MB

pS: i´d also recommend e-sword

 

[chunkofcoal]

I agree with bluemarkus about e-sword. I downloaded it myself recently.
www.e-sword.net

 

[Crazy Liz]

There have been a lot of threads in Bibliology and Hermeneutics about different translations, but it seems like none of them have been active in the last 30 days. Here are a few links for you:

http://www.christianforums.com/t774...curate-english-translation-for-the-bible.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t676652-which-study-bibles-do-you-use.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t83106-which-translation-do-you-read.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t733009-what-bible-version-do-you-most-prefer.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t31836-whats-is-your-primary-bible-version.html

With the poll threads, you'll usually see more serious discussion on the later pages than the first couple of pages.

 

[bluemarkus]

i´m looking forward to the search function of this forum which will be added in time to come. will save us all a lot of Q being repeated over again...

thank you liz !

 

[dcyates]

Darnell, I must first of all commend you for all the time and thought put into your biblical studies. It's obvious this is something you're passionate about, and passion is often infectious.

Let me confess right off the start that I both have and use nearly a dozen different English translations of Scripture, and often try to stick my nose into both the Hebrew Old Testament (OT) and the Greek New Testament (NT), along with the occasional foray into the Septuagint (which, just in case you're not already aware, is the ancient Greek translation of the OT, and is most often the one that the apostle Paul himself quotes from in his epistles), as well as a peek here and there into an Aramaic translation of the NT, just to get a better idea of the language that Jesus would have used in his teachings.

All that tooting of my own horn finished with, I have to say that, when it comes right down to it, virtually all of the modern English translations of the Bible have something or another to recommend themselves. Referring specifically to the TNIV, it is an excellent translation of the NT, improving as it does on the NIV. To begin with, it corrects some mistakes that were made in the NIV (none of these are big mistakes that need concern us; they are merely looking back over the translation process and deciding that, say, between this English word or that English word that are both legitimate possibilities in rendering a single Greek word, this one really would have communicated the intent of the Greek term better than does the other one). There also exist some minor theological corrections within the text that have been brought to light due to advancements in our knowledge of NT times, due to our now taking into consideration such factors as the distinct socio-cultural context within which the writings of the NT were composed. (I have this on pretty good authority as one of my old seminary profs is on the translation committee of both the NIV and TNIV.)

However, you have also raised the old gender issue with regard to the TNIV as opposed to the NIV. In this the TNIV is simply recognizing the fact that, when the NT writers use words that we previously thought referred to males, we now realize are actually not gender-specific in the original language. For instance, Paul writes that, "krivei ho theos ta krupta ton anthropon kata to euangelion mou dia Christo Jesou," which the NIV has rendered, "God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." However, we now know that it is in fact closer to the text's original intent if we instead translated this passage as something along the lines of, "God will judge the secret thoughts of people, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ," which is much closer to the actual rendering of the TNIV, which has it as, "God judges everyone's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares" (Rom. 2.16).

There are of course other--probably even better--examples that I could, or maybe should, have given, but hopefully this is sufficient to communicate my own intentions on this matter.

God bless you, and shalom.

 

[daveleau]

God bless you in your studies and may He guide you to ways to minister to your friend(s) in the Jehovah's Witnesses so he might find the Christ of Scripture rather than their non-deified christ.

I just finished writing a paper on inerrancy and inspiration for my systematic theology class, if you would like to read it and give it to the JW, you are more than welcome to it.

Each of the current Bible versions has small issues, this includes the KJV, NIV and TNIV. None of the small translational issues affects the theological aspects of any Christian doctrine. They are minor incorrect choices regarding updated language, or they have small additions or deletions that have been caused by scribes through the ages. There is no perfect (word for word perfect) Bible today. The Scriptures in their original form were absolutely inerrant in every detail, but today's Scriptures are fully inerrant (meaning there are slight word variations but theologically they are absolutely inerrant).

The main complaint by KJV-only and other anti-NIV people is that the NIV removed many passages. In fact, the NASB, NIV and HCSB All delete pretty much the same lines from the KJV. The reason that they remove these is because the manuscripts unearthed do not have these passages on them. The KJV was made from an older set of Greek, Hebrew and Latin (mostly Latin) texts. These were old enough that the Scribes had already inserted little phrases to "help" our understanding. So, Bible translations that take advantage of the older manuscripts (and no, these are NOT coptic manuscripts) are closer to the autographs (aka originals).

My advice for choosing a Bible: get a parallel Bible. These have several translations in one binding. My favorite Bible for study is a 4-way parallel that has the NASB. KJV, NIV and Amp (wish it had the HCSB instead). It is too heavy to carry to church (I carry an NIV, KJV to church) but it is a superb Bible for learning.

God bless,
Dave

 

[filosofer]

God bless you in your studies and may He guide you to ways to minister to your friend(s) in the Jehovah's Witnesses so he might find the Christ of Scripture rather than their non-deified christ.

I just finished writing a paper on inerrancy and inspiration for my systematic theology class, if you would like to read it and give it to the JW, you are more than welcome to it.

Hi, Dave. I would like to read it. For the past 25 years I have studied and written several papers related to this topic as well as teaching the material. It is interesting to note that inerrancy is a relatively recent word and not the best. The historical word for this kind of discussion is infallibility, which better reflects the nature of the texts.

The Scriptures in their original form were absolutely inerrant in every detail, but today's Scriptures are fully inerrant (meaning there are slight word variations but theologically they are absolutely inerrant).

This is where inerrant becomes essentially unusable/meaningless. What would you do with the situation in which Paul wrote a circular letter (perhaps Ephseians), but each time there was a difference in the next version? So, which one is inerrant? Or what about Matthew? Suppose he wrote the Gospel in two versions: Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek?

This is why infallibile is better.

The main complaint by KJV-only and other anti-NIV people is that the NIV removed many passages. In fact, the NASB, NIV and HCSB All delete pretty much the same lines from the KJV. The reason that they remove these is because the manuscripts unearthed do not have these passages on them. The KJV was made from an older set of Greek, Hebrew and Latin (mostly Latin) texts. These were old enough that the Scribes had already inserted little phrases to "help" our understanding. So, Bible translations that take advantage of the older manuscripts (and no, these are NOT coptic manuscripts) are closer to the autographs (aka originals).

Just a point of clarification: the KJV uses more recent manuscripts, not older manuscripts.

My advice for choosing a Bible: get a parallel Bible. These have several translations in one binding. My favorite Bible for study is a 4-way parallel that has the NASB. KJV, NIV and Amp (wish it had the HCSB instead). It is too heavy to carry to church (I carry an NIV, KJV to church) but it is a superb Bible for learning.

God bless,
Dave

I would essentially agree that a person should study with several translations.

I do my serious study in Hebrew and Greek. For translations I use several, NASB (95 ed.), God's Word (God's Word to the Nations Bible Society), REB, NKJV, NIV, NTL, TEV, Jerusalem, etc.

For clarification about how I come to that choice, I divide translations into three groups:

1. word-for word (NAS, NKJV, KJV, NAB, RSV, NRSV)

2. dynamic (or functional) equivalence (God's Word, NIV, REB, NLT, CEV, etc.)

3. paraphrases (Message, The Living Bible, etc.)

The best method of using the translations is to take one from each of the first two groups and then add others as necessary/convenient. Word for word translations are good, but do not always convey the sense of the original.

I prefer the combination of NAS (because it maintains some of the nuances, especially of the Greek verbs, see Matthew 18:18 for a future perfect passive that is correctly translated) and God's Word (because of its handling of poetic forms in the Old Testament). The REB offers a British slant and is very good. The NLT is good in some places, but there are crucial passages that are not as good. Still, it can be a good companion to another translation.

I never recommend the Amplified Bible, because it gives a false sense of translation, and worse, the underlying text.


The Amplified Bible can give good insight but it also causes problems by presenting something out of context. By giving several alternatives for a Greek/Hebrew word in a specific instance, it almost appears that the specific Greek/Hebrew could mean any of those things. Ultimately, the meaning of the word is determined by, and derived from, context, that is, the surrounding words. Thus, to imply that a specific Greek/Hebrew word could mean one of several different words, because there are lexical (dictionary) definitions (or better glosses) available is not helping understanding the meaning of that word in this specific context.

This also leads to interpreting rather than translating in the Amplified Bible

Issues of translating vs. interpreting the text -- two examples:

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah].

Words inside [ ] indicates "amplified" phrasing, which are added to the text. First, note that the coming wrath is restrict by the added words [upon the impenitent]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Even more questionable is the last added phrase [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah]. There is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to this phrase. This is purely commentary, not translation, made to appear as if it is specifically intended by the Greek text. It is misleading to say the least.


1 Thessalonians 2:3

AMP: For our appeal [in preaching] does not [originate] from delusion or error or impure purpose or motive, nor in fraud or deceit.

The main concern here is with the first inserted text [in preaching]. The Greek word is PARAKLHSHS, often translated as exhorted or comforted. But nowhere is the connection made with this word and preaching, unless the word KHROUSW is present in the context. In other words, the AMP Bible has limited this appeal to a preaching context when the text does not allow such a restriction/limitation.

Also in this text, how many items are actually mentioned in the Greek text? From the AMP it would appear at first glance as if there are six items that Paul enumerates. Yet the Greek text has only three. Now the question arises, why the expansion? And then why those particular words for expansion because the six do not exhaust the semantic domains of the three Greek words? the reader is left with a false impression, twice in this verse alone, because the AMP Bible is not translating but interpreting and providing commentary.

------

There are many others that could be cited. But if you do not know Greek (in the cases of the NT), then at least check the NAS, NKJV, KJV, etc. translations and begin to get a sense of where translating ends and commentary begins.

 

[daveleau]

I'll send it to you when I finish the final copy tonight. I'm still editing.

My take on the words are that there are different qualifiers that need to be mentioned when discussing inerrancy: absolute inerrancy, full inerrancy and limited inerrancy. Infallibility, to me, doesn't apply to texts but to ideas. In my paper, I used the three qualifiers of inerrancy. Absolute = every word is perfect. Full = some scientific and historical details can be approximations and there can be minor variations in lexical attributes. Limited = inerrancy applies only to salvific passages (pretty liberal idea that I do not hold.)

I'll send you a copy tonight.

God bless,
Dave

 

[Smurfboy]

Thanks, guys! That helps a lot. Not only NIV but I also use KJV (rarely). Major of my family always prefer KJV while I personal prefer NIV because of new English that makes it easier to read and understand.

I am well aware that there is no such as perfect translation in any Bible but most of them are as close to God's word as possible. I don't know why but TNIV is really tickle me off because of the words (especially gender-issue) that might confuse to some people at times. I mean if new people do not understand what the meaning of the Scriptures, then they should seek older-Christians with enough experience, knowledge, and wisdom and ask for help. It's no need for those people that works with NIV to make another new Bible for new people to understand but I guess that's just me.

Anyway, thank you for your time helping and point out some issue for me. I am really appreciate your time and consideration.

 

[Knowledge3]

Hello, my name is Darnell Clay and I am a new Christian (about a year). I have gone to Bible Study Universe (BSU) for about 2 years and I have had spent a lot of times studying into the Bible in order to have closer relationship with my savior, Lord Jesus Christ. My grammar is not the best English, due to the hearing loss I have since birth. For the past a year, Lord Jesus Christ has taught me many different values and has changed my life completely. Although I'd love to testify about how I got saved, I really need your help on NIV and TNIV that I'm having issue with. Before you make any further comment, I want to give a little background on how I got confused with NIV and TNIV, so you can get the idea of where I'm at.

When my friend, who considered himself as Jehovah's Witnesses, invited me over to his church about several months ago, and while the preacher was speaking of Jesus, I started to realize that their teaching of Watchtowers are completely differ from what the Bible/Christianity has taught. I was confused and prayed to God that He will lead me to seek the truth. In Deuteronomy 13:14, God stated that "...you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly," and so, I devoted my time to do that. So I careful analyzed the information of background on Watchtower and their beliefs; and to my extremely surprised, the difference beliefs between Watchtower (WT) and the Bible was totally opposed. "What's the world coming to?!," I thought. After studying on WT for about a month, I asked my friend to discuss about that on weekend and he agreed to do so.

Well, this is where we end up talked about Greek language in the Bible. They're using their own Bible of New World Translate (NWT), which was made by about 7 Jehovah's Witnesses in early 1950's and 1980's. Basically on what we have discussed so far, he was saying that the NWT is consider reliable and are as accurate as original Greek/Hebrew language and with that, I disagreed. I've finished search more information on 7 people (mostly about Charles Taze Russell, Joseph F. Rutherford, and Nathan Knorr) who has started the whole new NWT, and as far as I'm concerned, they aren't as expert as Greek scholars who actually knows a lot about Greek/Hebrew. Even Rutherford admitted at the court in early 1950's that he does not know much about Greek/Hebrew and that, alone, proved me more than enough to consider that the NWT are not reliable and should stay away at any cost.

I even pointed that out to my friend and yet, it doesn't ring him any bell. Even I mentioned about the presidents from WT and a lot of mistakes that they have made through public, he believes that knowing about their teaching is insignificant and I was truly astounding by that. Even in the Bible that comes from the very word of God stated that if ANY false prophet predicts something that is not entire true, then their words should take with a grain of salt. Amazingly, my friend ignored that and I was very sadden, angry, and disappointed in him. I KNOW that he is smart enough to realize about that.

So about a week later, he wrote me in a letter, concerning NIV and TNIV. In his argument, he stated that NIV is not reliable and so are TNIV and with that, I should not use that (I use NIV all the time). Despite the fact that I know NIV is reliable since most well-known Christians use this, I studied carefully into TNIV and noticed that they have changed several words i.e. 'man' change to 'they', and so forth, compare with NIV. Now, this part got me confused! So, people, I really need your help and tell me what do you think of NIV and TNIV?

I just wanted you all to know, first of all, that I do not support TNIV, even though I'm using NIV, the very same people that made both of them. For one reason, our Lord Jesus Christ stated that we should not change/add any words to the Bible and He mentioned that on several occasion. Speak of add/change, I just used King James Version compare with NIV and some of the words in NIV are missing! Example:

Luke 4:4 (NIV): "Jesus answered, "it is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"
Luke 4:4 (KJV): "And Jesus answered, 'It is written: That Man sall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'"

Where's the words "every word of God" in NIV? I'm surprise it's not there. Sorry for a long post but I must know the answer about this issue and I REALLY appreciated your time reading it. Thank you for time, as I'm looking forward to get to know you all.

Thank you.

In Lord Jesus Christ,
Darnell Clay

I stick with the NIV, but the 1611 KJV is something else.

The Septuagint in a Lutheran Concordia Bible gives numerous cross-references along the hortizontal lines between the scriptures. And volumes of eiesogesis with references to a deeper understanding of what and which passages mean as you cross-examine the scriptures to gain deeper understanding of the Bible.

 

[daveleau]

Just a note, but did you mean exegesis rather than eisegesis? Eisegesis is reading your ideas into Scripture, while exegesis is getting the meaning out of Scripture.

God bless,
Dave

 

[Tenorvoice]

I would advise you to steer clear of the TNIV, please stay away from it. It is not a good translation. It has totaly changed the Prophesis of the Coming Messiah.

They tryed to make it more "gender freindly" but when they did it changed WAY too many things around and changed the meaning behind them.

Just please steer clear of it.

 

[dcyates]

I would advise you to steer clear of the TNIV, please stay away from it. It is not a good translation. It has totaly changed the Prophesis of the Coming Messiah.

They tryed to make it more "gender freindly" but when they did it changed WAY too many things around and changed the meaning behind them.

Just please steer clear of it.

All due respect, Tenorvoice, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the TNIV. It's not perfect--no Bible translation is--but it's certainly an improvement on the NIV.
And what's wrong making the NT more 'gender friendly'? Why should our English translations be effectively alienating more than half of the Christian community completely unnecessarily? Especially given the fact that those texts in the Greek NT, which the TNIV has as non-gender specific, are in fact non-gender specific. But don't take my word for it. Go to an excellent lexicon like Louw & Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Vol. 1, and turn to Section #9 starting on page 104, dealing with the domain of "People." There you will find that the first 23 pronouns listed are non-gender specific, yet almost all of them, whenever they occur in the NT, will have been translated in our English Bibles as masculine. Why? It's certainly not accurate.

 

[Tenorvoice]

http://www.afr.net/audio/050905b.wma


I would advise anyone that is considering this Bible to listen to this discussion.

But just for a rule of thumb to go by. If it is politically correct, most likley it is Biblically INcorrect.

And if you listen to the discussion that I have placed the link to, you will hear them talk about just a small portion of the passages that were changed one example is in Psalms 8:4
This is what the NASB says:
PS 8:4 What is man that You take thought of him,

And the son of man that You care for him?

and this is what the TNIV says: 4 what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

Now we all know that this verse was refering to Jesus. But when you read the TNIV you have know idea who the verse is refering to.

and just one other example for now.

1 Timothy 2:12 The NASB states this:

1TI 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

and the TNIV states this:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [a], [b] she must be quiet.

In the TNIV it is saying that it is a choice. Where in the original text it is saying that it is not allowed at all.

Just please steer clear of it.

But if you want to do some more reserch on this subject purchase this book and read it for yourself. : http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=28797&netp_id=333229&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

 

[filosofer]

Just keep in mind that the authors of that second link have a very strong bias against the TNIV because they are part of the ESV translation team. hmmmm

Also, one of the main criticisms by these two (and others) is that the TNIV switches from singular to plural to avoid "sexist" language. However, the ESV translation makes the same kind of decision in John 20:23, where they refuse to take the accusative plural in the first part of the sentence ("sins") as the accusative for the second part of the sentence, but they take the verb of the first part, ("forgive") change it into a noun ("forgiveness") then consider that the accusative of the second main verb. That is translation gone awry.

So, before the kettle gets too black, anyone looking at these issues needs to have an attitude that is tempered with Christian integrity, honesty, and humility.

 

[filosofer]

And one more thing, I am not a fan of either the NIV or TNIV. But I will look at all translations and see what they can provide in terms of understanding the original language text underlying the translation. BTW, I translate all passages from the Hebrew or Greek that I will preach or teach from, so having several English translations is an after-translation tool.

 

[Tenorvoice]

And one more thing, I am not a fan of either the NIV or TNIV. But I will look at all translations and see what they can provide in terms of understanding the original language text underlying the translation. BTW, I translate all passages from the Hebrew or Greek that I will preach or teach from, so having several English translations is an after-translation tool.

This is the best thing for anyone to do. Tho' not always practical since not everyone can read the Hebrew/Greek text's