Is it time to "update" the NIV?

[Yeshua1]

"I think it's fair to say that in terms of translation philosophy, the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB." Rod Decker

Esv still "functionally literal", unlike the Niv, which is "functionally dynamic"

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Esv still "functionally literal", unlike the Niv, which is "functionally dynamic"

Wrong again, Y-1.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Dr. Eugene Nida created the term which he subsequently changed to Functional Equivalence because people misunderstood the term Dynamic Equivalence.

Dr. Nida came up with the term in 1964. The NIV N.T. was published in 1973.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Thought for thought, not a word for word translation, per them!

That is not at all in the preface of the NIV. And that would be the primary source explaining what the translation philosophy is.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I referenced the NJB and REB. You need to get it straight. And those two are indeed acceptable Bible translations:; not as good as the NIV, but acceptable. I have made threads on both noting their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't own a physical copy, but the NABRE is also in that cluster.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Usually the Nas and the Esv!

Yes, you use those two, but your pastor used to preach from the TNIV. What does he now preach from? The current NIV would seem to be most most logical step from the TNIV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong again, Y-1.

the Esv state that their translation is "functionally literal" correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is not at all in the preface of the NIV. And that would be the primary source explaining what the translation philosophy is.

So they would not be thought for thought then?

 

[Van]

It's been ten years since the NIV was updated.

Is it time for another update?

If so, what would you like to see changed?

Yes, the NIV should be totally revised using the "meaning for meaning" translation methodology.

Here are just a sampling of the flaws crying out for correction:

Flaws found in the NIV

1) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read, "therefore"
2) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read, "moved with anger."
3) John 1:16 should read: For out of His fullness of grace, we all accepted, and grace became more grace.
4) John 21:5 friends should read, "children."
5) Acts 13:50 "leaders" should be italicized to indicate an addition to the text.
6) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read, "propitiatory shelter."
7) 1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read, "act like men."
8) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read, "children of wrath."
9) Colossians 1:28 the omission of "every man" (or every person) reduces the force of the teaching that the gospel is understandable to every person.*
10) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 to be saved should read, "for salvation."
11) 2 Thessalonians 3:6 who is idle should read, "who leads an undisciplined life"
12) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read, "revealed in the flesh."
13) Titus 3:4 love should read, "love for mankind."
14) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read, "offering."
15) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read, "yet rich in faith."
16) 1 Peter 4:6 those who are now dead should read, "those who are dead."
17) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation."
18) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation."
19) Revelation 13:8; 17:8 from the creation should read, "since the foundation." And Matthew 25:34 and Hebrews 4:3 since the creation should read "since the foundation."
20) Revelation 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."
21) 1 Samuel 15:19 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
22) 1 Samuel 15:20 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
23) 1 Samuel 15:22 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
24) Philemon 1:6 the verse should read as follows: "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to all of you in Christ Jesus."
25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."
26) 1 Corinthians 6:19 "your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you" should read "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in all of you.
27) Matthew 3:11 should read, ""As for me, I baptize all of you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize some of you with the Holy Spirit and others with fire.
28) Matthew 11:12 should read, ""Since the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens has been forcefully sought, and forceful people are laying hold of it."
29) 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not say all things that come from the Spirit, therefore the verse should read: The person without the Spirit does not accept some of the things of the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit,
30) Titus 2:11 "Offer" has been added which alters the message, the verse should read: For the grace of God, who provides salvation, has appeared to all people.
31) 1 Corinthians 3:1: Siblings I could not speak to you as mature indwelt people, but as to people not indwelt, and as immature indwelt people who have yet to learn from the Spirit.
32) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord and as many as accepted direction to eternal life believed.


Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, 16, 25, 29 and 30 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 26 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.
Example 24 and 28 documents a translation devoid of meaning, just an array of disconnected phrases.
Example 27 clarifies the confusion produced by the Greek plural "you."
Examples 31 and 32 present an unambiguous correction to the NIV translations.

When translators "add" words or phrases, "omit" words or phrases, or translate words or phrases outside of the historical-grammatical meaning unnecessarily, in order to make doctrine driven choices, they are presenting a flawed translation in my opinion. All translations have flaws, the product of fallible people, but the NIV flaws seem abundant to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you use those two, but your pastor used to preach from the TNIV. What does he now preach from? The current NIV would seem to be most most logical step from the TNIV.

mainly from the Niv 2020

 

[RipponRedeaux]

the Esv state that their translation is "functionally literal" correct?

No, as a matter of fact.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

So they would not be thought for thought then?

The term "thought-for-thought" is not found in the preface of the NIV. As I have often told you : Do your own homework. Reduce the amount of your constant questions to a bare minimum, and do your own research. It's part of the maturing process.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

mainly from the Niv 2020

Try to write in complete sentences Y-1. Your pastor preaches from the 2011 NIV.

 

[Yeshua1]

The term "thought-for-thought" is not found in the preface of the NIV. As I have often told you : Do your own homework. Reduce the amount of your constant questions to a bare minimum, and do your own research. It's part of the maturing process.

The Niv indeed seems to be thought for thought, as not word for word !

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Niv indeed seems to be thought for thought, as not word for word !

You need to exercise some thought in your posts.

 

[George Antonios]

It's been ten years since the NIV was updated.

Is it time for another update?

If so, what would you like to see changed?

If they keep it up with the rate of "new-and-improved" Bible versions we'll soon have a reverse Moore's law on our hands.

 

[37818]

. . . Moore's law . . . .

Moore's Law Explained

. . . have a reverse Moore's law on our hands.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have not analyzed the 2011 NIV in any depth but it is evident that there are a few improvements over the older edition. Sarx is rendered as 'flesh' throughout rather than as 'sinful nature' and Philippians 2:6 incorporates the latest thinking on the meaning of harpagmos.
However the constant missing out of conjunctions like 'for' (e.g. Romans 1:18) and 'therefore' (e.g. Isaiah 12:3) has not been corrected and the policy of 'gender neutrality' exemplified by the use of the singular 'they' plays into the hands of the LGBTXYZ brigade. The BBC's Style Guide bakes in bias - and gender ideology I also recommend a read of George Orwell's 1984. Here is a quote from the appendix, referring to Newspeak.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

When 'he' and 'she,' 'man' and 'woman' have been proscribed, gender itself will have been obliterated. Christians do not need to be what Lenin called 'useful idiots' by facilitating this.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

However the constant missing out of conjunctions like 'for' (e.g. Romans 1:18) and 'therefore' (e.g. Isaiah 12:3) has not

the use of the singular 'they'

In Robert Slowley's comprehensive comparison of the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV (as well as the TNIV) he states that in the 1984 edition the use of the word for occurred 7,219 times. In the 2011 edition it occurs 7,273 times. So the 2011 version increased the count by 54.
Regarding Romans 1:18 the CEB, EHV, NABRE, NCV, NLT along with the NIV, do not have the cherished word for. And you know what? It doesn't change the meaning of the verse one whit without it.

Concerning Isaiah 12:3 the same goes. The meaning of the passage is not hindered a bit with the precious word therefore. The following translations (among others) do not have that unnecessary word :
CSB, CEB, ESV, ISV, LEB, NABRE, NCV, NET, NLT, NRSV all joining with the NIV.

Over the years I have shown you that the singular they has been in use for more than 500 years. The usage began in your nation. It's not an Americanism alone. I have given you a sample of your own usage of the singular they, along with examples from James White and John MacArthur. It's just a fact of life in conversation. And it shows up in periodicals, newspapers and books.

I have also admitted to you that there are cases in the NIV in which it is awkward at times. Until ta or thon (I prefer the latter) can take its place the singular they is here to stay.

 

[Yeshua1]

Try to write in complete sentences Y-1. Your pastor preaches from the 2011 NIV.

You are correct, as had Nas 2020 on my mind there!