NIV 2011 Revision…Thoughts?

[StephenUSAFVet]

I feel Lockman might have made a grave mistake when they drastically updated the NASB translation. The 95 revision was intended to be a very literal translation, which I don’t find reads as “wooden” as some critics say. The 2020 revision I feel is less literal, has gone more of the dynamic route, and has cheapened the translation. Those are strictly my thoughts and opinions. For that reason also I don’t use the NIV often for studying or quoting in any of my assignments in college.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I dislike the NIV 2011, and my church still uses the 1984 version. If we change, I expect we shall move to the ESV.
I dislike all 'Gender Neutral' Bibles, and I concede that the NIV is not the worst, but I also dislike the wretchedly jerky way it tries to straddle the Gender fence. For example. John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” Job 33:26. ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favour with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being.' Yuk!
More important are the places where the Person of Christ is obscured. Hebrews 2:6-9, quoting Psalm 8 is a case in point.

I agree that Job 33:26 is awkwardly worded in the NIV. As for the translation of John 11:25, it is acceptable. The singular "they" is pretty much standard English now. The NRSV began employing it in 1989, 32 years ago. But there is a translation of that verse that I favor. "I am the resurrection and the life. All who believe in me will live, even though they die." (Robert Mounce)
As for Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2, I have time and again given you sound reasons why in the former humanity alone is in view, and in the latter verses 6 through 8 humanity again is the thrust of the text.

"Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (Fee and Strauss)

"All commentators agree that enosh and ben adam are generic references to humanity." (Fee and Strauss)

"Those quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general." (John MacArthur)

 

[rlvaughn]

"All commentators agree that enosh and ben adam are generic references to humanity." (Fee and Strauss)

Kind of off topic, but I was surprised to see that Fee and Strauss would assert that "all commentators" agree on anything. John Gill's comments on verse 4 appear to diverge from their assessment.

...which is to be understood, not of man in general...

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Now regarding Van-spam, he has made these particular posts over and over and over again. I guess he feels that no one was listening the first through the 12th times he spammed them. And for someone who calls his posts "consolidated" he needs to consolidate. Numbers 2, 5, 8 and 14 all deal with the same ole' thing.

I will be comparing VPT (Van's Preferred Translation) with an array of Bible versions found on Bible Gateway. It's up to Van to determine how strict versions have to be in order to align with his wording. The versions I will use to compare his take are : CSB, CEB, ESV, ISV, LEB, Mounce, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV and WEB.

1) Matthew 3:11 --no version has VPT
2), 5) 8) and 14) regarding his preference for Gehenna --no version has his take.
3) Matthew 11:12 --none
4) Matthew 11;20 --none
6) Matthew 25:34. the word 'since' means from the time. But Van is hung up on the particular wording of 'since the foundation.' He apparently objects to the NIV wording of "since the creation." Picky, picky.
7) Mark 1:41. The NIV has "Jesus was indignant." That wording is unsatisfactory in Van's view. CEB has 'incensed.' The LEB has 'becoming angry.'.' The NET has 'moved with indignation.' The VPT is 'moved with anger.' Nothing else will do. So, no translation agrees with his take.
9) Luke 6:4. The VPT is 'lawful for priests alone.' The LEB, NET and WEB are in the ballpark, but not his exact wording. So no translation agrees with Van here.
10) Luke 6:36. The CEB, Mounce and NLT agree with him.
11) Luke 9:18. VPT is 'praying alone.' The ESV, LEB, WEB, NASB and NRSV agree with him. Van apparently distains the wording of 'praying in private.'
12) Luke 10:40. VPT is 'doing the work alone.' The NET has "all the work alone." Again, it depends how picky Van is. And he has been known for being rather persnickety. So no translation agrees with him.
15) Luke 15:7. VPT is 'do not need to repent.' The ISV and NIV agrees with him. Because the NIV has the rendering he prefers, it's a mystery why he considers this a mistranslation. So I will have to disqualify Van on this account. Zero points for him here.
16) Luke 18:13. VPT is 'be propitious.' No translation agrees with him.
17) John 1:16. VPT is 'grace after grace.' The LEB agrees with him.
18) John 6:29. VPT is 'The work God requires of you." Mounce comes closest, but since it isn't the exact wording Van blanks out here.
19) John 21:5. The VPT is 'children.' Eight translations agree with him. Van hit the jackpot on this one.
20) Acts 2:4. The VPT is 'foreign languages' Six translations sort of come close to his VPT. But since there is nothing exact. No points for Van.

Van earns 25% in this round because only four VPT had other translations agreeing with his take. Twelve went against him.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Continuing my comments on VPT of a number of passages.
21) Acts 13:48. VPT is heretical. No translation is in agreement with him.
22) Acts 13:50. Van thinks the word 'leaders' need to be in italics. But the NIV, ISV and Web counter that.
23) Acts 28:2. VPT is 'love for humankind.' That is one of the oddest things Van has come up with. It doesn't fit the context whatsoever. No translation agrees with him.
24) Romans 1:6. VPT is "positionally sanctified." No translation has it.
25) Romans 1:7. VPT is "positionally sanctified in." No translation has it.
26) Romans 3:22 VPT is "through the faithfulness of Jesus." The NET, CEB and ISV agree with him. The CSB has a footnote citing VPT, but of course the text differs.
27) Romans 3:25. VPT is "propitiatory shelter." No translation has it.
28) Romans 8:15. VPT is "brought God's pledge to your promised benefits as children of God." No translation has that.
29) Romans 8:28. VPT has "positionally sanctified according to his purpose." No translation has that.
30) Romans 12:1. VPT is "in view of God's compassions." Strange grammar. Accordingly, no translation has that wording.

Van got one out of ten here. That earns him a whopping 10%.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They’ve 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.

Thank you. That much I knew.
What made me smile was your definition of this as 'gender accurate.' It is of course an inaccuracy in the interests of gender fascism. The word of God says 'brothers.' So what? The Holy Spirit obviously got it wrong so it must be changed forthwith to comply with the standards of the world..
It's not as if there is no Greek word for 'sister.' Adelphe is used with adelphos when the Holy Spirit has deemed it appropriate.(Mark 3:35; 10:29-30; Luke 14; James 2:15).

OK. Rant over. I am glad to note that the new NASB has put and sisters in italics so that people can see that the words are not in the original. As I wrote above, my real objection to 'Gender Inclusive' translations is when they obscure references to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Thank you. That much I knew.
What made me smile was your definition of this as 'gender accurate.' It is of course an inaccuracy in the interests of gender fascism. The word of God says 'brothers.' So what? The Holy Spirit obviously got it wrong so it must be changed forthwith to comply with the standards of the world..

"The Greek plural noun adelphoi can refer to (1) brothers (male siblings); (2) siblings (i.e., brothers and sisters), or (3) people in some other close bond or association. It is sometimes used in the New Testament of physical siblings (see 1 Cor. 9:5), but more often refers figuratively to the kinship between Christian believers.
...The NIV at Philippians 4:1 reads 'Therefore, my brothers [adelphoi] ...stand firm in the Lord'...But in this context, and many others like it, the author is clearly addressing the whole church --both men and women. In the very next verse Paul encourages two women, Euodia and Syntyche, to live in harmony. [So the NIV and other versions accurately render adelphoi as 'Therefore, my brothers and sisters.'] This translation is not a 'paraphrase' or a concession to a political correctness. It is exactly what the Greek term meant in its first century context." (Taken from "How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth" by Fee and Strauss, p.99).

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Continuing to respond to VPT spam.

31) Romans 12:10. VPT has 'sibling love.' Of course no translation has that monstrosity.
32) 1 Cor. 1;2. VPT has "to those positionally sanctified in Christ Jesus and set apart as his holy people." No translation has that.
33) 1 Cor. 1:24. VPT has 'to those positionally sanctified." Naturally no translation has that.
34) 1 Cor. 2:14. VPT has The person without the Spirit does not accept some of the things of the Spirit of God." You can readily see that Van wants to insert his errant theology into his 'translation." It's a given that no translation matches up with his take.
35) 1 Cor. 3:1. VPT has 'siblings." This is related to his post #31. No translation has his ugly wording.
36) 1 Cor. 6:19. VPT is "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in all of you." There is no question that no translation has that odd rendering. Stick with the NIV for that portion of the verse :"...your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you..."
37) 1 Cor. 14:29. VPT is "let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." This rendering is found in a number of translations. But the wording of the NIV is found in the ISV, NLT, and Mounce. "Weigh carefully = evaluate.
38) 1 Cor. 15:33. VPT is 'beneficial character.' As you might have guessed, his wording isn't in any translation.
39) 1 Cor. 16:13. VPT is "Act like men." The NIV has be courageous; be strong. The NIV rendering is also found in eight of the 12 translations I cited earlier when I first started my reply to Van's assertions.

To sum up, seven VPT get zero points. Two others are found in some translations. But since the NIV wording is found in several of the twelve translations, Van does not get any points. Van has not made a sufficient case for his positions.

Sorry Van. You get a rating of 0%. You asked for it buddy.

 

[Ziggy]

If Greek can use the generic masculine αδελφοί to cover *all* the "brethren", or the masculine singular pronoun to include both genders or collective implications, then *why* should it be thought necessary to reject the simple English generic masculine in order to "explain" such for apparent dummies?

Martin Marprelate is correct, "It is of course an inaccuracy in the interests of gender fascism.... The Holy Spirit obviously got it wrong so it must be changed forthwith to comply with the standards of the world."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

In the footnotes of the NIV for 1 John 2:9, it states :"The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God's family; also in verse 11, and in 3:10,15, 17; 4:20,21;5:16. "

"This footnote reminds us that translation is not about 'literally' reproducing words or the form of the text (in this case, a masculine form), but about accurately reproducing the meaning. The fact that adelphoi is one word in Greek while 'brothers and sisters' is three words in English is irrelevant, so long as the meaning is retained. And the meaning in these passages is 'brothers and sisters' or 'fellow believers." (Fee & Strauss, p.100)

 

[Conan]

The Holy Spirit obviously got it wrong

Has got to be the weakest of weak arguments. That's a horable statement to appeal to.

 

[Yeshua1]

I also prefer the 95. Totally different thread, but what do you think of the upcoming LSB?

So far so good, seems to be reading a lot like my 1977 nas!

 

[Yeshua1]

I feel Lockman might have made a grave mistake when they drastically updated the NASB translation. The 95 revision was intended to be a very literal translation, which I don’t find reads as “wooden” as some critics say. The 2020 revision I feel is less literal, has gone more of the dynamic route, and has cheapened the translation. Those are strictly my thoughts and opinions. For that reason also I don’t use the NIV often for studying or quoting in any of my assignments in college.

The Lsb seems to be the real revision of the 1995 Nas, as it seems to be more keeping strictly formal intact!

 

[George Antonios]

I don’t know why gender accuracy has become such a big ticket item in modern translations.

The devil's first sphere of influence, long before drugs and fornication and magic, is the words of God (see Genesis 3).

 

[Van]

They’ve 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.

And that effort continues to draw a distinction between male and female after being born anew, something scripture denies, saying there is no difference, male and female. Thus where we see "brothers and sisters" we should see "siblings" which addresses everybody with no difference or distinction.

 

[Yeshua1]

The devil's first sphere of influence, long before drugs and fornication and magic, is the words of God (see Genesis 3).

Are you saying satan got involved in translations after kjv?

 

[George Antonios]

Are you saying satan got involved in translations after kjv?

After Genesis 3.

 

[George Antonios]

And that effort continues to draw a distinction between male and female after being born anew, something scripture denies, saying there is no difference, male and female. Thus where we see "brothers and sisters" we should see "siblings" which addresses everybody with no difference or distinction.

Scripture does not deny the physical and role and position differences of the genders after salvation.
It's only spiritually that those differences are done away with in Christ, not physically.

 

[Van]

Scripture does not deny the physical and role and position differences of the genders after salvation.
It's only spiritually that those differences are done away with in Christ, not physically.

So why not "siblings" when the spiritual relationship is in view?

 

[Van]

I feel Lockman might have made a grave mistake when they drastically updated the NASB translation. The 95 revision was intended to be a very literal translation, which I don’t find reads as “wooden” as some critics say. The 2020 revision I feel is less literal, has gone more of the dynamic route, and has cheapened the translation. Those are strictly my thoughts and opinions. For that reason also I don’t use the NIV often for studying or quoting in any of my assignments in college.

Yes, "wooden" was a common (group think) complaint concern the earlier rendering and was simply imported as a non-germane complaint concerning the NASB95 version. The NIV I think can be helpful if it is difficult to determine what was the intended message. Not that the NIV is correct all of the time, but many times it will open up a new avenue to consider.