In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Martin Marprelate]

First of all, I do not possess a 2011 NIV, so my comments are limited to the 1984 version. Secondly, I will not address the textual issues.

The NIV is by no means the worst translation of the Bible. My church uses it and therefore when I am preaching there I use it and I never criticize it in the church, though sometimes I have to point out its occasional failings in the course of an expository sermon.

One problem is that the NIV misses out certain prepositions. Just one example:-

Isaiah 12:3. '[Therefore] with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'
There is a little connecting word that joins verse 3 with verses 1 and 2 and the NIV misses it out. It doesn't have to be 'therefore;' 'So' or even 'and' would do, but we do not draw this water in a vacuum as it were. It is because God's anger is turned away and because He has become our salvation and because He now comforts us that we can draw the water.

Moving on, sometimes the word choice in the NIV is not as good as it might be.

1 Tim. 3:16. 'He appeared in a body.' I leave on one side whether it should be 'God' or 'He' or 'who,' and concentrate on the word ephanerothe, translated 'appeared.' This is the Aorist Indicative Passive of phaneroo which means to reveal or make manifest. It is the language of the theatre. There is someone waiting in the wings or behind the curtain, and when he is revealed, it is not the start of his existence; he was there before, but you couldn't see him. The Lord Jesus Christ did not commence His existence in the stable at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; John 1:14); therefore it is more instructive and theologically correct to say that He 'was revealed' or 'was manifested' in the flesh rather than that He 'appeared.'

There are several other verses, like Rom. 8:3 and 2 Thes. 3:6, where the word choice of the NIV is weak; there are also places like John 1:16 and Col. 1:28 where it descends into paraphrase. No translation is perfect; they are all made by sinful, error-prone men, but my personal advice is to go for the NASB if you like the Critical Text and the NKJV if you prefer the Traditional Text.

 

[Rippon]

Isaiah 12:3. '[Therefore] with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'
There is a little connecting word that joins verse 3 with verses 1 and 2 and the NIV misses it out. It doesn't have to be 'therefore;' 'So' or even 'and' would do, but we do not draw this water in a vacuum as it were. It is because God's anger is turned away and because He has become our salvation and because He now comforts us that we can draw the water.

The NIV is among good company here:ESV, NLT, HCSB, ISV, NET Bible and Darby.

Moving on, sometimes the word choice in the NIV is not as good as it might be.

1 Tim. 3:16. 'He appeared in a body.' I leave on one side whether it should be 'God' or 'He' or 'who,' and concentrate on the word ephanerothe, translated 'appeared.' This is the Aorist Indicative Passive of phaneroo which means to reveal or make manifest. It is the language of the theatre. There is someone waiting in the wings or behind the curtain, and when he is revealed, it is not the start of his existence; he was there before, but you couldn't see him.

What about waiting for His appearance? That's theater language as well. But I agree with you. I would prefer 'revealed' or 'manifested.'

There are several other verses, like Rom. 8:3 and 2 Thes. 3:6, where the word choice of the NIV is weak; there are also places like John 1:16 and Col. 1:28 where it descends into paraphrase.

You didn't bother to flesh things out.

In Romans 8:3 I suppose you don't like the wording of 'sin offering.' But the HCSB,ERV,77 NASB have the same.

In 2 Thess. 3:6 perhaps you don't like the word 'teaching.' Weymouth and Darby use it though. You prefer 'tradition' I guess.

In john 1:16 the NET note gives threee options --among them:"love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant,thus replacement."

Regarding Col. 1:28 the NET,ESV and HCSB all have 'mature in Christ.' The ISV has 'fully mature in the Messiah.' The NASU has 'complete in Christ.' I suppose you object to any wording that differs from 'perfect.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The NIV is among good company here:ESV, NLT, HCSB, ISV, NET Bible and Darby.

That is not my problem. There is a little Hebrew word waw there and it should be translated for the reasons that I gave.

What about waiting for His appearance? That's theater language as well.

In English, certainly. I was speaking about the Greek.

But I agree with you. I would prefer 'revealed' or 'manifested.'

It's nice to agree on something.

In Romans 8:3 I suppose you don't like the wording of 'sin offering.' But the HCSB,ERV,77 NASB have the same.

No.
Rom. 8:3b, NIV. 'And so he condemned sin in sinful man.'
Rom. 8:3b, NKJV. 'He condemned sin in the flesh.' Hendriksen says, ""it was in Christ's flesh, His human nature, that God condemned and punished the sins of the people. It was in His people's place that Jesus bore God's wrath." Interesting that Hendriksen was on the original NIV committee!

In 2 Thess. 3:6 perhaps you don't like the word 'teaching.' Weymouth and Darby use it though. You prefer 'tradition' I guess.

No. The Greek expression peripateo atakos means to walk out of line or in a disorderly manner. The NIV says 'who is idle.'

In John 1:16 the NET note gives threee options --among them:"love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant,thus replacement."

The NIV translation of 'From the fullness of his grace we have received one blessing after another' is just paraphrase. The word 'grace' is not in the text, and nor is the word 'blessing.'

Regarding Col. 1:28 the NET,ESV and HCSB all have 'mature in Christ.' The ISV has 'fully mature in the Messiah.' The NASU has 'complete in Christ.' I suppose you object to any wording that differs from 'perfect.'

No. 'Complete' is certainly better than 'mature.' My objection is the missing out of the thrice-repeated 'every man' which emphasises the universality of Paul's Gospel. The Holy Spirit put it in; it's not for us to take it out.

 

[Van]

Referring to Romans 8:3, earlier versions had "condemned sin in sinful man" but the latest version of the NIV corrected the error and reads "condemned sin in the flesh."

Revealed seems a tad better than appeared but lets not make mountains out of molehills.

About two thirds of the versions on bible hub have the conjunction (therefore or and) while about one third leave out the conjunction at Isaiah 12:3. Because the omission denies the student the opportunity to ask the question "what is the therefore therefore" I will add the verse to our list.

Also 2 Thessalonians 3:6 cites a broader malfeasance than idleness, i.e. failure to walk the talk. I will add it to our list.

Summary of thread:

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Personally, I think 1 Tim. 3:16 is the most important verse that I listed. The pre-existence of Christ is an absolutely vital doctrine. But it's your list, not mine.

 

[Rippon]

Rom. 8:3b, NIV. 'And so he condemned sin in sinful man.'
Rom. 8:3b, NKJV. 'He condemned sin in the flesh.' Hendriksen says, ""it was in Christ's flesh, His human nature, that God condemned and punished the sins of the people. It was in His people's place that Jesus bore God's wrath." Interesting that Hendriksen was on the original NIV committee!

The NIV has :"...condemned sin in the flesh."

The Greek expression peripateo atakos means to walk out of line or in a disorderly manner. The NIV says 'who is idle.'

2 Thess. 3:6
The NIV has "idle and disruptive."
The ESV has "walking in idleness"
ISV and NRSV have :"living in idleness"

The NET note says :"The particular violation Paul has in mind is idleness (as described in vv. 8-11), so this could be translated to reflect that."

The NIV translation of [John 1:16]'From the fullness of his grace we have received one blessing after another' is just paraphrase. The word 'grace' is not in the text, and nor is the word 'blessing.'

Well, your favorite translation (NKJV)has "grace for grace." The majority of translations has grace twice in this verse. Would you prefer the word favor instead?

NIV : "Out of his fulness we have all received grace in place of grace already given."

'Complete' is certainly better than 'mature.'

This deals with Col. 1:28. The NIV has "fully mature in Christ."

My objection is the missing out of the thrice-repeated 'every man' which emphasises the universality of Paul's Gospel.

NIV :"He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ."

NET notes:"Since Paul's focus is on the present experience of the Colossians, 'mature' is a better translation of (teleion) than 'perfect,' since the latter implies a future, eschatological focus."

"Men and women are clearly intended in this context."

 

[Rippon]

About two thirds of the versions on bible hub have the conjunction (therefore or and) while about one third leave out the conjunction at Isaiah 12:3.

Among those that do not have "Therefore" or "So" : YLT, NRSV,ESV, NLT, NET, NAB, Darby, GW, ISV, LEB and HCSB.

 

[Rippon]

Personally, I think 1 Tim. 3:16 is the most important verse that I listed. The pre-existence of Christ is an absolutely vital doctrine.

If you are trying to say that the NIV denies that doctrine you are terribly wrong. Just go to John 1:1,2 and Col.1:15-20 for starters.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, your favorite translation (NKJV)has "grace for grace." The majority of translations has grace twice in this verse. Would you prefer the word favor instead?

Actually, the Greek text has "grace" twice in the verse.

John 1:16 Καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος·

 

[Van]

Among those that do not have "Therefore" or "So" : YLT, NRSV,ESV, NLT, NET, NAB, Darby, GW, ISV, LEB and HCSB.

The YLT, LEB and Darby include the conjunction, translated as "and."

 

[Rippon]

The YLT, LEB and Darby include the conjunction, translated as "and."

...so? ;-)

 

[Rippon]

Summary of thread:
​

Van, your eleven items do not constitute a summary of the thread, but a summary of what you believe. However, you are not the only one posting here. I agree with you on two or three points, but there is no consensus on all eleven as you would have the unsuspecting public to believe.

​

 

[Van]

Summary of thread:

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"​

These problem verses reflect the input of at least three posters.

 

[Rippon]

Summary of thread:

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
​

JP disagreed with you.

2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."

You are the only one arguing for your position.

3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."

You are the only one arguing for your position. RSR took you to task on it.

4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."

You are the only one arguing for your position. In the Light disagreed with you.

5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."

You are the only one arguing for your position. RSR took you to the woodshed on that one.

6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"

You are the only one with a complaint about it.

7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."

You are the only one arguing for your position.

8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."

Here MM is on your side. He really dislikes the NIV rendering --you are kind of leaning that way really neutral on the subject.

9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."

MM does not like the NIV rendering. You don't think it's an issue. But you are the only one putting for your rendering.

10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"

MM agrees with you.

11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"

MM agrees with you.

These problem verses reflect the input of at least three posters.

No, on six of the verses you are the only one who takes the position you do. On four more there are four posters who disagreed with you (not counting myself.)

You have made it seem in these "Summary of Thread" posts that there are conclusions to be drawn on all of these passages wherein all posters have unanimity of thought. That is not the case.

All you can rightfully claim is that discussion was made concerning these verses.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Actually, I would tend to agree with Van on most of these verses, particularly Titus 3:4.
I want a Bible version that translates what's there, not the ideas of the translators.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, I would tend to agree with Van on most of these verses, particularly Titus 3:4.

Do you really now? You have problems with NIV renderings in 2 Thess.2:13,James 2:5, Rev.13:8 and Rev. 2:21?

Go ahead and address them one by one.

By the way, you have not dealt with my post 66.

I want a Bible version that translates what's there, not the ideas of the translators.

You are developing a Vanology; beware. In other words, you need to be cautious. The charges you make sound haughty. Look at the lives and credentials of the NIV translators and realize that you have gone too far with your remarks.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you really now? You have problems with NIV renderings in 2 Thess.2:13,James 2:5, Rev.13:8 and Rev. 2:21?

Go ahead and address them one by one.

Yes, I do have problems with those texts, and no, I probably won't be addressing them. I have a lot of stuff to do at present, and internet discussions are way down on my list of priorities.

By the way, you have not dealt with my post 66.

I will try to do that tonight, but only if I've finished my sermon for the Lord's day. that has to come first.

You are developing a Vanology; beware. In other words, you need to be cautious. The charges you make sound haughty. Look at the lives and credentials of the NIV translators and realize that you have gone too far with your remarks.

And you are developing a sycophancy towards certain learned people that is unbecoming. My problem is not with the holiness or otherwise of the translators but with the translation philosophy of the NIV. Instead of translating humbly and faithfully the words that are in the inspired text, they are taking it upon themselves to interpret as well as to translate. This is likely to mislead those Christians who do not know the original languages and cannot therefore check things out.

However, as I have said, the NIV 1984 is by no means the worst translation on the market. If anyone thinks it is, 'Turn again; you will see greater abominations than these!' (Ezek. 8:15).[/QUOTE]

 

[Rippon]

And you are developing a sycophancy towards certain learned people that is unbecoming.

I have done no such thing. That's a crazy charge.

the translation philosophy of the NIV. Instead of translating humbly and faithfully the words that are in the inspired text,

That kind of sinful remark is getting to be your common refrain. It's sinful. You have no right to say such deplorable things.

they are taking it upon themselves to interpret as well as to translate.

You are only fooling yourself. All translation is interpretation.

This is likely to mislead those Christians who do not know the original languages and cannot therefore check things out.

Get off your high-horse.

However, as I have said, the NIV 1984 is by no means the worst translation on the market. If anyone thinks it is, 'Turn again; you will see greater abominations than these!' (Ezek. 8:15).

You have just called it an abomination! You are sick!

Think before posting. How would you like it if someone would say that the NKJV isn't the worst translation in the market --there are even greater abominations than that!

There is no need to go into the sewers MM.

 

[Rippon]

William D. Mounce: Greek for the Rest of Us
"Let me give you two problems of the 'word-for-word' approach. The first is that it is interpretive. The very reason people want a word-for-word translation is that they believe that there's not going to be any interpretation; and that simply is not true. All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive.(p.24)...a second problem of going wordd-for-word is that, frankly, word-for-word translation can lose or distort meaning..." (p.26)

 

[Van]

William D. Mounce: Greek for the Rest of Us
"Let me give you two problems of the 'word-for-word' approach. The first is that it is interpretive. The very reason people want a word-for-word translation is that they believe that there's not going to be any interpretation; and that simply is not true. All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive.(p.24)...a second problem of going wordd-for-word is that, frankly, word-for-word translation can lose or distort meaning..." (p.26)

Yet another change of subject, we have 12 examples of erroneous translation. Did anyone say word for word translation philosophy versions do not involve interpretation. Nope, so a strawman argument to derail the thread topic. Did anyone say word for word translation philosoph version cannot lose or distort meanings? Nope, so yet another straman argument to derail the thread topic.