Flaws found in NIV

Believers collectively are the body of Christ, the 2011 NIV translation changed the singular to plural, based on the popular view we as indivduals are "temples" of the Holy Spirit.
body > bodies, temple > temples
1 Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

 

Oh no! Now you have done it! You have gone and criticized the NIV. Now you must be destroyed.

 

I'm not a big fan of the NIV but I've used it while teaching the Sunday Adult Bible class since it's the popular version.

Van's "flaw list" is simply due to a failure to read the preface of the NIV.

"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).​

The NIV is simply not a formal word-for-word translation... it's translators had a different objective.

From hereon the thread should degenerate into an argument between the various translation techniques.

Rob

 

@Deacon :
Thanks for providing that.
In careful examination, I see some things that perhaps not everyone here may take exception to:

The first concern has continued to be the accuracy, which should be the only concern.

But then they add that, as part of that first concern, its faithfulness to the intended "meaning" of the biblical writers is combined with it.
I see that entire statement as being a problem, because they've made both:

1) Word-for-word accuracy, and
2) Faithfulness to the intended meaning...

....As being their first concern.
They are, in reality, two separate concerns...one of which introduces not just the possibility of error into the mix, but the distinct probability of it.
From a purity standpoint, they've just introduced their own interpretation of the texts into their process of determining what they decide are the actual words of God.
That's not translation...that's editorializing, and then representing that editorializing as the very words of the living God.



We know from Scripture that:

The words of God are pure words ( Psalms 12:6 ).
Men cannot be trusted ( Psalms 118:8-9 ), but the Lord can, to the extent that His children are commanded to do it ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).

What was "intended" by the authors ( in reality, God's Spirit ( 2 Timothy 3:16 )), is not what the problem is.
The "meaning" of the biblical authors ( in reality, the Holy Ghost's meaning ), should be left up to the reader to decide, not the translator.

The translator has one job to do...
Render the text as completely faithful to the words of the text in another language, without changing one "jot" or one "tittle".



If I were on the NIV committee, I would be very afraid.
God does not like it when men mess around with His words ( Revelation 22:18-19 ).

 

If God were so concerned about accurate word-for-word translations the New Testament authors would have used that technique.
Oddly enough they used a variety of techniques, even paraphrasing Scriptures at times.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss their flawed representation of God's word?

I'm sure God's word is well represented in the NIV and the numerous other modern versions.

Rob

 

He does and He is.
I also think that the "authors" that you are referring to is one Author speaking through men, and not many.

That said, what men do, outside of being guided by the Lord, is going to have ramifications.

I disagree.

Over the last several centuries, translators have become more and more concerned with conveying their own understandings of the texts, and not sticking to strictly word-for-word, when they can.
That is what the NIV does...it takes liberty with a technique know as "Dynamic Equivalency", instead of using "Formal Equivalency"as much as possible.

I would not.

But I will go so far as to make this statement:
As long as men stick with strictly word-for-word translation technique as closely as possible, then God will see their motives in the results, and so will His children.

I'm equally as sure that it is poorly represented in "translations" like the NLT, NIV "Amplified Bible" and any other ones that paraphrase His precious words.

 

We can trust the authors God inspired to "paraphrase" we cannot ever trust the authors of modern translations to "paraphrase" as they are not inspired of God. The comparison is apples and kitchen sinks.

 

I’d really encourage you to read Robert Alter’s recent book, The Art of Bible Translation [LINK] (March 2019). Alter is a great fan of the KJV, yet he does not ignore or disregard its weaknesses.

He writes:

The much-celebrated eloquence of the King James Version is very real, and that, coupled with its royal authorization, must have had a great deal to do with its rise to canonical status and with its profound influence on literary English.
One of the strengths of the 1611 translation is what I would call its inspired (not divinely inspired) literalism. The seventeenth-century translators worked with the theological conviction that every word of the Bible was revealed to humankind by God and that one didn’t play games with God’s words. (p.3)

…I clearly want to resist the notion of “dynamic equivalence” that has had some currency in recent Bible translations. The basic idea is to transpose the verbal formulations and idioms of the Bible into different ones that are entirely indigenous to the modern target language. One can see how such a procedure could make the “message” of the Bible more immediately accessible to readers in the many far-flung cultures where it is now read, but it inevitably entails a palpable degree of misrepresentation of the Bible’s literary vehicle. (p.23) ​

So as one who attempts to study the Hebrew Bible in its original language, I see the weaknesses of dynamic equivalence, and yet use the translations that employ the technique as a steppingstone to further study.

Rob

 

So you’re saying we are not to follow the examples of the apostles?
God expects exactness in todays translations but graded on a curve in ages past?

Rob

 

Hmmm, You seemed to have missed the point.

 

You do not prove your statement to be factual and to be based on use of consistent, just measures. You do not demonstrate that you apply your professed standards or measures for translating consistently and justly.

Perhaps others may see the Church of England makers of the KJV as being concerning with conveying their own Church of England understandings of the texts, and not sticking strictly to word-for-word, whenever they can.

I have not advocated nor recommended the NIV, but I do not see the same exact measures/standards that some attempt to apply to it being applied consistently and justly to the KJV.

 

2 of the biggest problems are failure to link Jesus to OT Son of Man, and to assume plural use of you when at times meant personal!