NIV Translation

[jwsiii]

I've heard that there are some problems with the NIV translation. I've heard it called the Nearly Inspired Version. The NIV version is the one I like to memorize from when I memorize. Does anyone know of some problems in the translation that I should look out for?

 

[bjh]

Define "problems". The NIV is a "dynamically equivalent" version. To put it into plain English "It's the thought that counts." The exact words used are not as important, but it is easier to read than some of the other versions. It is designed for reading but not necessarily word studies.

On the other hand, we have the formal equivalence of the NASB and the NKJV. The goal of these is a word-for-word translation (and yet still be somewhat readable). These are typically better for word studies.

Can God use either one? Yes, absolutely.

Which is easier to memorize from? Well, if you're memorizing passages, perhaps the NIV is easier - Go for it!

-- B. J. H.--

 

[Sinai]

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translatin can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side.

Personally, I like the NIV and use it for general reading--though I add other versions (along with the original languages) for more detailed or intensive study.

 

[Knight]

I'm a NASB fan myself though I use the NIV for most general reading.

I did notice a problem with the NASB once. Not that I think this invalidates it but it's interesting nevertheless.

If you compare the geneaologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke you will find an additional name in one of the versions that is not in the other. I think the translators have listed two versions of the same name in one of the accounts.

I don't recall offhand what the exact difference was but I could look into it if anybody's interested.

 

[danbarnaba]

You definitely cannot base your doctrine on NIV. There are specific problems with NIV that I can point out to you but at this moment I don't have the time to do it.

It is good to read several translations. I recommend NRSV, NAB and NKJV.

The only Inspired version is the original that is the Hebrew Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament. Why? Because the prophets, our Lord and his disciples spoke Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[bjh]

Aramaic New Testament? I thought that the original language for the New Testament was Greek.
Also, I thought that the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek OT - the Septuagint.

As far as inspiration goes, I think it is rather narrower - that it applies to the autographs (as the ink flowed from the pens of Moses, ..., Samuel, ..., Matthew, ..., Paul, etc.) as well as the exact copies (of which we are certain of about 99%).

Since we're in an NIV translation thread, I think that this is the perfect place to discuss doctrinal problems with the NIV.

 

[danbarnaba]

I was referring to the Aramaic Gospels that is called Peshitta. These are the original.

The Gospels were translated into Greek by the early disciples from the Aramaic.

 

[kimber1]

the NIV has more than several problems of entire verses being excluded from it. i'll give you a few adn you can look them up to see that they indeed do not exist in the NIV Bible. I'll just write the verse adn then you can look it up but then also find you another Bible and see what the verse says.

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

there may be more, but these i know for certain are missing. on looking up in another Bible what these verses say, you might say, well some of them it wouldn't make a difference wherther they were there or not but recall God's command to neither add to or take away anything from the scriptures adn well....you know...I'd hate to be the guys who omitted these!!

 

[bjh]

Although I think that the Peshitta is the standard of the Church of the East, I thought that the although the original Peshitta did not include the Old Testament Apocryphal writings (not being added until later), the New Testament was incomplete in that it does not include 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Aside from that, I thought that they followed the later or Byzantine text. (KJV and NKJV, but not NRSV or NAB).

 

[Reader Nilus]

the NIV has more than several problems of entire verses being excluded from it. i'll give you a few adn you can look them up to see that they indeed do not exist in the NIV Bible. I'll just write the verse adn then you can look it up but then also find you another Bible and see what the verse says.

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

there may be more, but these i know for certain are missing. on looking up in another Bible what these verses say, you might say, well some of them it wouldn't make a difference wherther they were there or not but recall God's command to neither add to or take away anything from the scriptures adn well....you know...I'd hate to be the guys who omitted these!!

The reason those verses are not in the NIV or NASB or other new translations is that they are not in the Greek text. The question is who added them. Bruce Metzger's book The Text of the New Testament answers those questions and there is nothing diabolical about it at all.
Jeff the Finn

 

[danbarnaba]

Although I think that the Peshitta is the standard of the Church of the East, I thought that the although the original Peshitta did not include the Old Testament Apocryphal writings (not being added until later), the New Testament was incomplete in that it does not include 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Aside from that, I thought that they followed the later or Byzantine text. (KJV and NKJV, but not NRSV or NAB).

Eusebius recorded that Papias the disciple of John said that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic before they were translated into Greek by the early disciples.

The Aramaic Peshitta is the purest among all ancient manuscripts as there
are almost no variants unlike the Greek text of the New Testament.

A few years back, I did a comparison between the Greek Gospels with the Peshitta Gospels as I suspected that the Greek Gospels were actually translated from the Peshitta and not the other way round.

 

[kimber1]

jeff, do you have a link to that book?

 

[Reader Nilus]

jeff, do you have a link to that book?

The book itself is not online, The Text of the New Testament. That link is to Amazon's site which gives some sample pages of it.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Sinai]

I was referring to the Aramaic Gospels that is called Peshitta. These are the original.

The Gospels were translated into Greek by the early disciples from the Aramaic.

Do you have documentation regarding this, danbarnaba? I had been under the impression that the Peshitta was merely the Bible primarily used by the Syrian church (especially those portions of Eastern Syria that were outside the Roman Empire and thus generally spoke their native languages (including Syriac, a Semitic language related to Aramaic) rather than Greek or Latin.

If memory serves correctly, the New Testament was primarily written in Koine Greek, which was the common language of the people. It might also be noted that the oldest portions of the Greek New Testament we have predate the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta by about two and a half centuries.

Again, thank you for reminding us about the Peshitta, danbarnaba.

 

[danbarnaba]

Do you have documentation regarding this, danbarnaba? I had been under the impression that the Peshitta was merely the Bible primarily used by the Syrian church (especially those portions of Eastern Syria that were outside the Roman Empire and thus generally spoke their native languages (including Syriac, a Semitic language related to Aramaic) rather than Greek or Latin.

If memory serves correctly, the New Testament was primarily written in Koine Greek, which was the common language of the people. It might also be noted that the oldest portions of the Greek New Testament we have predate the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta by about two and a half centuries.

Again, thank you for reminding us about the Peshitta, danbarnaba.

Syriac is actually Aramaic. Westerners called it Syriac but the Church in the East called it Aramaic.

In the past (i.e. 8 years ago) my main interest in Bible studies was textual criticism. I have little time to continue with one of my main interest in Biblical studies due to my tight working schedule.

If you studied the Greek New Testament you will discover that this "Koine" Greek actually has Aramaic influences in its syntax. That also explains why we have Modern Greek NT. If the original language of the Gospel is in Greek, then I think it is not right for Christians to have "Modern Greek" version of the NT. I am not a Greek native speaker but I don't find it difficult to understand the Greek NT. So, I don't understand why there is a need to retranslate the NT into Modern Greek. There is no doubt that many Greek speaking people today find it difficult to understand "Koine" Greek Gospel because it was literally translated from the Aramaic Gospel.

If I am not mistaken it was Adolf Deissman that demonstrated in his book that the NT Greek was actually "Koine" (common) language of the time in the Hellenistic world.

Regarding documentation, I did some documentation of my findings from the writings of the early church fathers, textual criticism, church history, etc. At this moment, I am not at my home to give you examples of my findings.

The OT was written in Hebrew which is the language of the prophets. The apostles were Aramaic speaking peoples. Why must they record the words of Jesus in Greek instead of the language Jesus spoke? Jesus didn't speak Greek. The best way to preserve his words is to write them in the language he spoke.

I discovered that many "difficult readings" found in our Greek NT could be solved if we refer back to the original Aramaic.

Before Erasmus published his Greek NT, many people in the West mistaken the Latin Vulgate as the original language of the Bible just like some KJV only people in America today that regard KJV as the only Authorized Version.

Don't you think that it is possible for the Western churches to make the same mistake?

I have nothing against Greek Gospels being the inspired words of God because according to Papias, Matthew wrote the Gospel in Aramaic and the early disciples translated it into Greek the best they could.

It was translated by the early disciples who were filled with the Holy Spirit. But the original is still the Aramaic. Where is the Aramaic version of the Gospels if it is not the Peshitta - the pure and original Gospels?

 

[CeCe]

the NIV has more than several problems of entire verses being excluded from it. i'll give you a few adn you can look them up to see that they indeed do not exist in the NIV Bible. I'll just write the verse adn then you can look it up but then also find you another Bible and see what the verse says.

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

there may be more, but these i know for certain are missing. on looking up in another Bible what these verses say, you might say, well some of them it wouldn't make a difference wherther they were there or not but recall God's command to neither add to or take away anything from the scriptures adn well....you know...I'd hate to be the guys who omitted these!!

There are also these, kimber1:

Mark 7:16
Mark 9:46
Acts 24:7

Also in John 5:3 there is a partial omission pertaining to the moving of the water.

 

[Philip]

How can you be certain that these verses are "missing" from the NIV? Could not the opposite be the case, that they were improperly added to the KJV? This is not necessarily my position, but rather an important logical question that must be addressed.

 

[kimber1]

well, i agree thats an important question. I have a NIV Bible and when you go to look up one of these missing verses it totally skips it. i mean like Matthew 17:21. it goes from verse 20 straight into verse 22. so if it wasn't missing i guess then why would it be numbered that way? hmmmmm. strange.

 

[Philip]

i mean like Matthew 17:21. it goes from verse 20 straight into verse 22. so if it wasn't missing i guess then why would it be numbered that way? hmmmmm. strange.

The verse-numbering is not part of the original text. It was added centuries later. If it was a KJV (or similar) version that was original delimited, we should expect the numbers to follow it. That is, if the "extra" verses were added before the numbers were assigned, why would we expect them not to be numbered?

 

[kimber1]

hmmm well, that deos make one think doesn't it? never quite thought about it that way! i just alwasy thought the KJV came about before the NIV?