NIV Question...

Denise, I'll try to help define it a little more. Dr. Bob didn't really define it in detail, he was just making a comment about it, but it did help. I thought I might explain it a bit further for you. Dr. Bob can correct me if I get this wrong.

When a translator translates from Greek to English (or between any two languages) there is naturally not just a difference in the alphabet and words, but the grammar has different rules.

For example: English may say: "Birds are flying south for the winter." another language MAY be worded like this when translated word for word: "Flying are birds winter for the south."

This isn't a good example because no language would be jut like that, but you can see that words are typically in different locations.

Not only this, tenses are not the same Greek has multiple meanings that we do not have with the same word in English. Therefore, it is difficult to express these words without using a group of words that explain the meaning.

Literal translation is as close to word for word translation as possible. Sentences are rearranged from the original to match English sentence structure. In other words, Nouns are placed where nouns belong and verbs placed where verbs belong.

Even in literal translation there are often words added to help understand (especially with Greek to English). In most cases a good literal translation will italicize those words so the reader knows they were added by the translator to assist the reader make sense of the sentence.

On the other hand, a dynamic translation is almost like a paraphrase. The translator reads a sentence and completely rewrites it trying to make it sound like what he/she thinks the original author "meant".

The danger here is that the bias of the translator is often added or subtracted during the translation process.

With decent translations the NIV is very dynamic, although relatively accurate, I would not recommend it for serious Bible study. I would recommend it be used in witnessing people who do not red the Bible normally, or for young people or anybody who cannot read well.

So, you have dynamic translation on one end of the scale and more literal on the other. You cannot have perfectly literal unless it is an interlinear which is hard to read. So, there is a little bit of dynamic translation in every translation, but a BIG difference between the NASB and the NIV (For example).

Does that help any more? If not, I'll defer to Dr. Bob.

 

There is that "attack" word again. What, in your personal opinion, is the difference between an honest, objective, professional and accurate (howbeit lighthearted) comment on a particular flavor of translation and an "attack against the other side”?

</font>[/QUOTE]Referring to a version as "a 400 year old chicken sandwich," appears to me to be an attack on that version. Just like calling MVs "comic book Bibles" would be.

What would be appreciated is open debate without comments which are going to cause offense. We all know which words to use to "push the button" of other posters and "speaking the truth in love" would seem to imply that we avoid those terms.

 

C4K wrote,

When I specifically called the NIV a cheeseburger high in cholesterol, C4K wrote that he wanted to say “Amen” to my post, that is, until he read my last sentence in which I suggested that the KJV was a "a 400 year old chicken sandwich."

It looks to me that C4K is saying, “Push anyone’s buttons but mine and I will give you an ‘Amen,’ but don’t you dare push any of my buttons or you are not ‘speaking the truth in love.’”

I personally find it to be very hypocritical to say we should not push other people’s buttons and yet be the first to push them ourselves. Using the descriptive words “perfect” and “accurate” in reference to the King James translation of the Bible severely mischaracterize that translation and are going to "push the buttons" of those who have spent many years with the data and therefore know better.

I don’t scream fowl when the King James translation of the Bible is mischaracterized by calling it perfect or accurate, and I don’t believe that anyone should scream fowl when it is accurately characterized as an extremely outdated translation full of archaisms and words that have a VERY different meaning (indeed, in many cases the OPOSITE meaning) today than they did in 1611, and that the New Testament portion of this severely antiquated version is translated primarily from a text that was abandoned by the great majority New Testament scholars as inadequate less than 25 years after the KJV was first published.

It is the professional opinion of very many scholars that the KJV is no longer adequate for either the pulpit or private use, and a plethora of revisions of the KJV and new translations of the Bible, including the NIV, have been prepared as a consequence. Indeed, the vast quantity of Biblical scholarship being performed today is giving our new translations a shelf life of only about 40 years.

The NASB was first published in 1971 (the New Testament section was first published in 1963 and was slightly revised in 1968). This afternoon I purchased a first edition of this outdated translation for $2.50 in an antique store (No joke—this is literally true). Since 1971, the NASB went through several minor revisions and a much more comprehensive revision in 1995.

The NEB was first published in 1970 and included a revision of their New Testament that had been published in 1961. Advances in Biblical scholarship and changes if the English language rapidly caused this translation to be seriously out of date and a “radical revision” (these are not my words, but are the words of the publisher) became necessary and the resultant work, first published in 1989, is the Revised English Bible.

The Jerusalem Bible was first published in 1966 and soon became so outdated by advances in Biblical scholarship and changes if the English language that it became necessary to replace it in 1985 with the New Jerusalem Bible.

The true and accurate story of the official major revisions of the KJV is found in the preface to the second edition of the RSV. Since this preface says it much better than I can, I shall let it speak for me. As you read this preface, keep in mind the NIV.
(continued)

 

Preface to the Revised Standard Version
(2nd ed., 1971)

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.
The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.
The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.
The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking peoples.
The King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression … the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.
Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928, this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.
The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry as to whether further revision was necessary. For more than two years the Committee worked upon the problem of whether or not revision should be undertaken; and if so, what should be its nature and extent. In the end the decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version of 1901, which will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other.
In 1937, the revision was authorized by vote of the Council, which directed that the resulting version should "embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship, and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature."
Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee. The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1951.
The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament, only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.
The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the "Masoretes") of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel-signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants.
Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized. Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text. In every such instance, a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived, and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text.
Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.
The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes the present translation will be found to render a Hebrew word in a sense quite different from that of the traditional interpretation. It has not been felt necessary in such cases to attach a footnote, because no change in the text is involved and it may be assumed that the new rendering was not adopted without convincing evidence. The analysis of religious texts from the ancient Near East has made clearer the significance of ideas and practices recorded in the Old Testament. Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain. Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote. If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note. It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated. To record all minority views was obviously out of the question.
A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). The ancient Greek translators substituted the work Kyrios (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.
The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar, and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.
A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible—the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say.
Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.
The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published on September 30, 1952, and has met with wide acceptance. This preface does not undertake to set forth in detail the lines along which the revision proceeded. That is done in pamphlets entitled An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament and An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, written by members of the Committee and designed to help the general public to understand the main principles which have guided this comprehensive revision of the King James and American Standard versions.
These principles were reaffirmed by the Committee in 1959, in connection with a study of criticisms and suggestions from various readers. As a result, a few changes were authorized for subsequent editions, most of them corrections of punctuation, capitalization, or footnotes. Some of them are changes of words and phrases made in the interest of consistency, clarity, or accuracy of translation.
The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic members, who come from Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
The Second Edition of the translation of the New Testament (1971) profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946. Many proposals for modification were submitted to the Committee by individuals and by two denominational committees. All of these were given careful attention by the Committee.
Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11), are restored to the text, separated from it by a blank space and accompanied by informative notes describing the various arrangements of the text in the ancient authorities. With new manuscript support, two passages, Lk 22.19b-20 and 24.51b, are restored to the text, and one passage, Lk 22.43-44, is placed in the note, as is a phrase in Lk 12.39. Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32,51, etc.). Among the new notes are those giving the equivalence of ancient coinage with the contemporary day's or year's wages of a laborer (Mt 18.24,28; 20.2; etc.). Some of the revisions clarify the meaning through rephrasing or reordering the text (see Mk 5.42; Lk 22.29-30; Jn 10.33; 1 Cor 3.9; 2 Cor 5.19; Heb 13.13). Even when the changes appear to be largely matters of English style, they have the purpose of presenting to the reader more adequately the meaning of the text (see Mt 10.8; 12.1; 15.29; 17.20; Lk 7.36; 11.17; 12.40; Jn 16.9; Rom 10.16; 1 Cor 12.24; 2 Cor 2.3; 3.5,6; etc.).
The Revised Standard Version Bible seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. We have resisted the temptation to use phrases that are merely current usage, and have sought to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition. We are glad to say, with the King James translators: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better."
The Bible is more than a historical document to be preserved. And it is more than a classic of English literature to be cherished and admired. It is a record of God's dealing with men, of God's revelation of Himself and His will. It records the life and work of Him in whom the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God's Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today. It is our hope and our earnest prayer that this Revised Standard Version of the Bible may be used by God to speak to men in these momentous times, and to help them to understand and believe and obey his Word.

 

Please notice the following words from the preface quoted above,

I suppose that the expression “grave defects” will push a few buttons, but we might want to consider if it is not the Holy Spirit who is pushing the buttons using the words of men as they objectively and accurately wrote the truth to convict our hearts of the need for a translation that does not have these grave defects. Early 17th century literature is beautiful and no English speaking persons should deprive themselves of enjoying it, but when it comes to the inspired word of God, we can do, and in my opinion, must do substantially better than the KJV. However, I do NOT believe that the NIV fits the bill. We can and must do substantially better than the NIV. The inspired word of God deserves to be accurately translated employing the very finest and up to date scholarship from the most accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. And it deserves to be fairly, honestly, and objectively translated in into English prose and poetry that has a sufficient vocabulary to express the original concepts as well as they can possibly be expressed in the English language.

In my opinion, the NIV fails to accurately, fairly, honestly, and objectively translate the word of God into English, but it is my opinion that the 1995 edition of the NASB succeeds in doing so.

 

When I specifically called the NIV a cheeseburger high in cholesterol, C4K wrote that he wanted to say “Amen” to my post, that is, until he read my last sentence in which I suggested that the KJV was a "a 400 year old chicken sandwich."

It looks to me that C4K is saying, “Push anyone’s buttons but mine and I will give you an ‘Amen,’ but don’t you dare push any of my buttons or you are not ‘speaking the truth in love.’”

</font>[/QUOTE]Good point - I guess I should have objected to your use of "cheeseburger high in cholesterol" as well.

The rest of your post is the kind of debate in which we should be involved here - a reasoned expression of opinions.

 

I suppose if we try hard enough, we can find fault with every word in every post on this message board, and I suppose that is much more desirable than someone else finding fault with our favorite translation of the Bible.

 

Or, we could critique versions with reason and intellegence as your last posts above did.

 

Ecc 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
Ecc 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
Ecc 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Ecc 3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
Ecc 3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
Ecc 3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
Ecc 3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
Ecc 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. (KJV)

Maybe some of us are more sensitive to the seasons than others.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am already getting more hate mail from those “intelligent” posts than I did form the chicken sandwich post! I better turn off my computer and go to bed before the death threats start coming in.

 

Yes, that's a great explanation. Even though I do like to read from the NIV, now I can begin to understand why some people don't care for it.

 

I will read the NIV or other easy to read version if I am pressed for time and want to get an overview of what a book is like. It is a good way get the sense of what the book is about. Then, I will use a literal version to get into detailed study of the book.

 

Ummm, nope. {Looks at NASB next to him}