NIV 2011 Revision…Thoughts?

And you are in the harass Van with impunity business. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

StephenUSAFVet said: ↑

"They’ve [NIV translators] added “and sisters” in italics after the word “brothers” in MANY places. That’s probably the biggest example I can give you because it’s the one that stands out the most." ​

Here are examples of where the NIV has added "and sisters" without italics. And in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos (G80) as siblings.

Luke 21:16
Acts of the Apostles 11:29
Acts of the Apostles 16:40
Acts of the Apostles 18:18
Acts of the Apostles 21:7
Acts of the Apostles 21:17
Acts of the Apostles 28:14
Acts of the Apostles 28:15
Romans 1:13
Romans 7:1
Romans 7:4
Romans 8:12
Romans 8:29
Romans 10:1
Romans 11:25
Romans 12:1
Romans 15:14
Romans 15:30
Romans 16:14
Romans 16:17

And many many more..

All told the number of poor translation choices in the NIV identified in this thread exceeds 100.

 

More "and sisters" not in the text but added by stealth (without italics) in the deeply flawed NIV:
1 Corinthians 1:10
1 Corinthians 1:11
1 Corinthians 1:26
1 Corinthians 2:1
1 Corinthians 3:1
1 Corinthians 4:6
1 Corinthians 6:8
1 Corinthians 10:1
1 Corinthians 11:33
1 Corinthians 12:1
1 Corinthians 14:6
1 Corinthians 14:20
1 Corinthians 14:26
1 Corinthians 14:39
1 Corinthians 15:1

And many more...

To repeat, in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos" (G80) as siblings.

 

It's false of you to charge me with saying false things.
And you are not saying the "exact same thing. Ten years ago you said "Most italics [sic] words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification."

But now you are objecting to the NIV saying "and sisters" without those words being in italics. It's a Van vs. Van deal. You have a disconnect Van.

 

Can you believe this incredible expert in comprehension. Most words added are unnecessary. "And sisters" is unnecessary if G80 is translated as siblings.

Pay no attention to this genius.

 

More "and sisters" not in the text but added by stealth (without italics) in the deeply flawed NIV:
1 Corinthians 1:10
1 Corinthians 1:11
1 Corinthians 1:26
1 Corinthians 2:1
1 Corinthians 3:1
1 Corinthians 4:6
1 Corinthians 6:8
1 Corinthians 10:1
1 Corinthians 11:33
1 Corinthians 12:1
1 Corinthians 14:6
1 Corinthians 14:20
1 Corinthians 14:26
1 Corinthians 14:39
1 Corinthians 15:1
1 Corinthians 15:6
1 Corinthians 15:31
1 Corinthians 15:50
1 Corinthians 15:58
1 Corinthians 16:15
1 Corinthians 16:20

And many more...

To repeat, in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos" (G80) as siblings.

 

Shall we add a few more examples of where the NIV has needlessly added "and sisters" by stealth (not in italics) when G80 could simply be accurately translated as "siblings?"

2 Corinthians 8:1
2 Corinthians 13:11
Galatians 3:15
Galatians 4:12
Galatians 4:28
Galatians 4:31
Galatians 5:11
Galatians 5:13
Galatians 6:1
Galatians 6:18

That adds up to more than 50 examples of poor choices by the NIV translators. And citing other translations making the same mistake does not negate the NIV's error. And oh yes, I could list another about 50 examples of this same error in the deeply flawed NIV!

 

The "examples" you gave don't even qualify as 'flawed' much less 'deeply flawed.'

In your oft repeated scores of supposed mistranslations you have come up dry Van. And your orthodoxy is questionable with many of your awkward and ill-applied renderings. Your take on Acts 13:48 isn't too far removed from the JW translation. Your wording is a malignant translation. You try mightily to insert your heterodox theology into your translations and the result is far removed from historic, Christian beliefs.

 

Van made three posts with 145 examples of what he claimed were deep flaws in the NIV. I have debunked them time and time again over the past decade or so. But he keeps dredging them back up again and again. It's interesting to note that in your response to his posts you cite gender accuracy as a major problem in the NIV and other modern Bible translations. I find it strange that you would object to gender accuracy or anything that is accurate in the field of Bible translations. As it is, in all of Van's 145 examples not one of his items deals with the subject of gender accuracy.
Another thing. The NIV translation had a 1984 edition. It remained in force as the most popular English Bible (or possibly the largest selling Bible translation in the world) for decades. Then the TNIV came out with two editions in 2001 and 2005. There was such an uproar based basically on a rumor rag that it was discontinued. The 2011 edition, known as the NIV has remained unchanged for a decade now. An upgraded edition is planned for release in the middle of this decade. So for 37 years some form of the original 84 edition has been in place. The current edition retains almost 61% the same as the 1984 edition. Over 31% carries over the TNIV usage, and another nearly 8% is entirely new --neither using the 1984 edition nor the TNIV edition. ( exactness is hard to come by because Robert Slowley and John Dyer differ slightly with each other's percentages).
It is worth noting that Martin Luther kept revising his German translation constantly throughout his life. That was at least half a dozen times. But I doubt that you would complain about that. A little appreciation of the history of Bible translation wouldn't hurt you.

 

Stephen, you might want to review my posts which refute Van's items. Mine are in posts 55, 56, 64, 65 and 104. But the important ones are posts 64 and 65.

 

Added :
#99) 1-39
#100) 40-63

So five times Van recited items 1-39 and five times he recited items 40-63. There was an overlap in his post #4 with items he numbered 1-43.

That's a heaping helping of repetition in case someone neglected to see his first several rehearsals of the very same material.

 

I think the 2011 NIV is the best overall English translation. It is called the International Version with very good reason. It's not just for American readers. Nor is it meant for only readers that have English as their first language. It is not an easy reading version, nor is it a hard-to-follow version. It meets in the middle. It doesn't use slang or street language. It doesn't use that many contractions as the CSB does for instance. It retains most of the theological language that older versions such as the NKJV, ESV and 1995 NASB have. A notable exception is the word "propitiation" which has been discussed time and time again on this board.
It has both strengths and weaknesses as do all translations. No translation can do all things well. But the NIV is able to accomplish most of the various criteria better than most English versions in my opinion. I appreciate and use a variety of other English Bible versions and do a fair amount of comparison.
I think the NIV has been a trendsetting pioneer in the field of Bible translation. It has influenced other translations such as the ESV, NASB and NLT.
Its popularity as #1 is due to its usefulness in covering so many bases as well as it does.
The scholarship is topnotch. Some names you may recognize on the translation team are Doug Moo, Mark Strauss, Craig Blomberg, Bill Mounce and Daniel Wallace. There are ten more eminently qualified members.