• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Problems with the NIV

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
First, learn to format your posts. If you can use italics, then you can use the quote function properly. Figure it out or ask someone.

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
]Even though Jesus never said it anywhere. :rolleyes:
[/quote]Have you not read your Bible?? This is exactly what Jesus said. However, we have been through this. You never managed to adequately explain what Jesus said and I don't imagine that you will start now.

[qb]So you agree with the NIV that homosexuality and adultery are not sexually immoral? :eek:
\
Once again, you twist the words of both myself and the NIV. The NIV is clear that these things are sexual immorality. Get it out and read it and stop making stuff up.

The bottom line here is that if you are going to complain about the NIV, make it valid issues. You have not hit one single real issue. There are certainly some in the NIV. These are not among them. Don't make stuff up and misrepresent the text simply to find a beef. Get a real one.
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
First, learn to format your posts. If you can use italics, then you can use the quote function properly. Figure it out or ask someone.
That comes across as condescending (which is consistent with the remainder of your post), but thank you anyway for the tip.

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Even though Jesus never said it anywhere. :rolleyes:
Have you not read your Bible?? This is exactly what Jesus said. However, we have been through this. You never managed to adequately explain what Jesus said and I don't imagine that you will start now.
I have read my Bible. Jesus exactly did not say moicheia; He explicitly said porneia. If He had meant to say moicheia, He would have said moicheia. He did not. You're a pastor, so you can read a Greek NT better than most people outside of academe. You can read the exception clause--you can see it doesn't contain the word moicheia. Why do you repeatedly state what is so blatantly and demonstrably false? You may disagree with the conservative position on remarriage as adultery, but you do not need to rewrite the actual words Jesus used according to the Greek text--unless you have some argument from the original Semitic (whether you believe it to be Hebrew or Aramaic) you have yet to put forth. But traditionally, it's the Greek text that has been regarded as canonical.

The bottom line here is that if you are going to complain about the NIV, make it valid issues.
Fortunately I did. I provided the only ones I consider of consequence in my favorite translation. No others have been brought to my attention that I consider of any serious import, except those since corrected in the TNIV.

So you agree with the NIV that homosexuality and adultery are not sexually immoral? :eek:
Once again, you twist the words of both myself and the NIV. The NIV is clear that these things are sexual immorality. Get it out and read it and stop making stuff up.
Please stop making false accusations. I am not making anything up. The NIV mistranslates porneia in that verse as "sexual immorality," thus excluding the adultery and homosexuality also listed in that verse from falling within the meaning of the term. I was quite clear that that is a false impression, but one that the mistranslation facilitates (which was my obvious point).

Don't make stuff up and misrepresent the text simply to find a beef. Get a real one.
I've made nothing up though I have engaged in some obvious satire. I haven't misrepresented the text at all. And I don't go looking for a beef about my favorite Bible version. I responded honestly to the original post by mentioning the only real, serious, and life-altering problems I've seen in the NIV.

[ October 08, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Taufgesinnter ]
 

Gunther

New Member
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Did you think about this?? If a person is married and sexual immorality takes place, it is by definition "marital unfaithfulness." Therefore, the NIV is exactly right.
Of course I thought about it. Why is 'pornea' limited to 'marital unfaithfulness' here? You show me the greek words for 'marital' or 'unfaithfulness' here in any greek text.

Further, to demonstrate that this is an 'interpretation' and not an accurate translation, 'unfaithfulness' could take on more forms than simply sexual.

The whole concept of the NIV translation is no different than a commentary.

John MacArthur spoke at Southeastern recently and trashed any non-formal equivalence translation. Good for him.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Gunther:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Did you think about this?? If a person is married and sexual immorality takes place, it is by definition "marital unfaithfulness." Therefore, the NIV is exactly right.
Of course I thought about it. Why is 'pornea' limited to 'marital unfaithfulness' here? You show me the greek words for 'marital' or 'unfaithfulness' here in any greek text.

Further, to demonstrate that this is an 'interpretation' and not an accurate translation, 'unfaithfulness' could take on more forms than simply sexual.

The whole concept of the NIV translation is no different than a commentary.

John MacArthur spoke at Southeastern recently and trashed any non-formal equivalence translation. Good for him.
</font>[/QUOTE]Porneia is any kind of aexual deviant behavior. It is a general term to describe this kind of activity. It could be with animals, another person, or another thing.
 

Gunther

New Member
So why did the NIV translators take it upon themselves to 'interpret' this word for us by making it refer to 'marital unfaithfulness' (which does not demand sexual immorality).

It is an interpretation. Repeat after me...
 

TomVols

New Member
John MacArthur spoke at Southeastern recently and trashed any non-formal equivalence translation. Good for him.
To be fair, MacArthur has endoresed the NIV in his writings (for devotional purposes).
 
Originally posted by Gunther:
John MacArthur spoke at Southeastern recently and trashed any non-formal equivalence translation. Good for him.
even good people make mistakes--it's not nice to say "Good for him."

dynamic equivalence is really what saves so-called formal equivalent translations, so there's no need to trash it. the KJB itself included: can u imagine how it might've come across WITHOUT its numerous "And it came to pass" n "God forbid"?

our English language itself mighta been v different ;)
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
Yes, the KJV has many examples within it of dynamic equivalence. "Cast the same in his teeth" is another one of those.

MacArthur's web site today still reads: "The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV does not follow the exact wording of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the KJV and NASB versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for devotional reading."
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Gunther:
Why is 'pornea' limited to 'marital unfaithfulness' here?
Because the people are married. There is no kind of "sexual immorality" that is not marital unfaithfulness. What is so hard about that???

You show me the greek words for 'marital' or 'unfaithfulness' here in any greek text.
No need to. See above

Further, to demonstrate that this is an 'interpretation' and not an accurate translation, 'unfaithfulness' could take on more forms than simply sexual.
Only if you don't pay attention to the context.

John MacArthur spoke at Southeastern recently and trashed any non-formal equivalence translation. Good for him.
So what? If he did this, he is wrong. Having said that, teh NIV is closer to a formal equivalence than it is to a dynamic equivalence. It strikes a middle ground, one which I am not entirely comfortalbe with, but a middle ground nonetheles. I think people don't really understand how "dynamic" a dynamic equivalent really is. The NIV is not that dynamic, all things considered. It is simply more dynamic than the KJV and much much more dynamic than teh NASB.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
1hat comes across as condescending (which is consistent with the remainder of your post), but thank you anyway for the tip.
There was nothing condescending in it. It was simply an encouragement to format your posts properly. At first, I completely overlooked your response because it looked like a mistake.

I have read my Bible. Jesus exactly did not say moicheia; He explicitly said porneia. If He had meant to say moicheia, He would have said moicheia. He did not. You're a pastor, so you can read a Greek NT better than most people outside of academe. You can read the exception clause--you can see it doesn't contain the word moicheia. Why do you repeatedly state what is so blatantly and demonstrably false? You may disagree with the conservative position on remarriage as adultery, but you do not need to rewrite the actual words Jesus used according to the Greek text--unless you have some argument from the original Semitic (whether you believe it to be Hebrew or Aramaic) you have yet to put forth. But traditionally, it's the Greek text that has been regarded as canonical.
We have been through this and I see that you still have not bothered to do your homework ont eh meaning of the word porneia. Until you do, you will continue down this wrong line of thinking.l Porneia includes all forms of sexual immorality including adultery. I already told you this, I defended both from context and resources, and told you where you could look it up to find out that I was not lying to you. Why not take this opportunity to learn?

I provided the only ones I consider of consequence in my favorite translation. No others have been brought to my attention that I consider of any serious import, except those since corrected in the TNIV.
Since these you have shown have been shown to be of no import since you misunderstand them, then there is no problem at all.

Please stop making false accusations. I am not making anything up. The NIV mistranslates porneia in that verse as "sexual immorality," thus excluding the adultery and homosexuality also listed in that verse from falling within the meaning of the term. I was quite clear that that is a false impression, but one that the mistranslation facilitates (which was my obvious point).
I am not sure how many times you have to be told that porneia is sexual immorality. The first several hundred haven't been successsful. The only thing I can suggest is get out your lexical resources and look it up. These discussions get old because people simply refuse to do any research and any study. That should be unacceptable. None of us should be unwilling to get the books out and study.
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------

I have read my Bible. Jesus exactly did not say moicheia; He explicitly said porneia. If He had meant to say moicheia, He would have said moicheia. He did not. You're a pastor, so you can read a Greek NT better than most people outside of academe. You can read the exception clause--you can see it doesn't contain the word moicheia. Why do you repeatedly state what is so blatantly and demonstrably false? You may disagree with the conservative position on remarriage as adultery, but you do not need to rewrite the actual words Jesus used according to the Greek text--unless you have some argument from the original Semitic (whether you believe it to be Hebrew or Aramaic) you have yet to put forth. But traditionally, it's the Greek text that has been regarded as canonical.
--------------------------------------------------

We have been through this and I see that you still have not bothered to do your homework ont eh meaning of the word porneia. Until you do, you will continue down this wrong line of thinking.l Porneia includes all forms of sexual immorality including adultery. I already told you this, I defended both from context and resources, and told you where you could look it up to find out that I was not lying to you. Why not take this opportunity to learn?
Because I already knew that porneia means sexual immorality when used in its broad sense, which I'd already indicated early on. The argument was about its semantic domain when the word is used in contradistinction to another word that has a narrower meaning.

I am not sure how many times you have to be told that porneia is sexual immorality. The first several hundred haven't been successsful. The only thing I can suggest is get out your lexical resources and look it up. These discussions get old because people simply refuse to do any research and any study. That should be unacceptable. None of us should be unwilling to get the books out and study.
As if I hadn't. All forms of sexual immorality fall within porneia's semantic range when it is used broadly. If it weren't being used more narrowly, why would Paul have been so redundant as to include specific acts of sexual immorality after he'd already covered all possibilities?
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
All forms of sexual immorality fall within porneia's semantic range when it is used broadly. If it weren't being used more narrowly, why would Paul have been so redundant as to include specific acts of sexual immorality after he'd already covered all possibilities?
You answered your own question ... semantic domain. You assume it is being used broadly when in fact, it is probably not. In 1 Cor 6, the list you cite shows that it is being used narrowly. So you proved your own point ... and mine at the same time.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
why would Paul have been so redundant as to include specific acts of sexual immorality after he'd already covered all possibilities?
Because of the culture of those whom he was addressing. Roman culture (for instance) was monogamous by law but also allowed a man several mistresses by law with the concubines and progeny having less than full spousal or family rights.

Paul addressing a Roman would have to include a mistress as a technically adulterous relationship for a Christian (Roman or otherwise) to have.

I believe the NIV did a good job with this passage in question.

For a Christian, I believe the Scripture teaches that any kind of sexual relations/contact/practice with ANYONE other than one's legal spouse (or even if that practice is alone without the express permission and presence of one's legal spouse) is marital infidelity.
That may be staight-laced but I believe it is Scriptural and that the NIV got it right.

My opinion, of course.

HankD
 

Gunther

New Member
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
1. Because the people are married. There is no kind of "sexual immorality" that is not marital unfaithfulness.

2. Only if you don't pay attention to the context.

3. If he did this, he is wrong.
1. First, you are assuming that they are married in its fullest sense of the word (and not legally married as was a Jewish custom - the betrothal period).

Second, Jesus was addressing the issue of divorce and remarriage. One rabbinical thought was that a person could divorce for any conceivable reason. Thus, the translation of "unfaithful" still proves to be worthless. If that is what he meant, he would have said that. However, Christ said "sexual immorality". There is more than one way to be "unfaithful" within marriage and not commit sexual immorality. What the NIV translators did was broaden the issue of divorce so as not to offend apparently. Again, it is an interpretation. There is no greek word present anywhere that might be translated as "unfaithful".

2. See above.

3. According to who? MacArthur is no slouch and neither is the Master's Seminary. Robert Thomas wrote an article about the theory behind DE. Very good stuff.

I stand by my statement that the NIV is a commentary and not Scripture. Only that which translates the words that God chose into its corresponding word(s) in their own language can be considered faithful. IF DE must be used, it must be rare.

If I have a text, and I communicate what I think the original authors meant, you wouldn't think that that was actually God speaking. That is what the NIV does.

- war FEonlyism
- war the Noles going union-vs-rebels on the Canes
- war the Gators losing again
- and war Chris Rix for the Heismann
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Gunther:
First, you are assuming that they are married in its fullest sense of the word (and not legally married as was a Jewish custom - the betrothal period).
I am assuming that because it is the most natural meaning in the context. The Jewish betrothal argument is a reach at best. It contradicts the OT teaching on divorce and remarriage.

Second, Jesus was addressing the issue of divorce and remarriage. One rabbinical thought was that a person could divorce for any conceivable reason. Thus, the translation of "unfaithful" still proves to be worthless. If that is what he meant, he would have said that. However, Christ said "sexual immorality". There is more than one way to be "unfaithful" within marriage and not commit sexual immorality. What the NIV translators did was broaden the issue of divorce so as not to offend apparently. Again, it is an interpretation. There is no greek word present anywhere that might be translated as "unfaithful".
"Marital unfaithfulness" is "sexual immorality." That is what marital unfaithfulness is and everyone knows it except those who are trying to split hairs. If you hear that someone was unfaithful to their spouse, you know exactly what is meant by that. The NIV did not broaden the issue of divorce in any sense at all. And it is an interpretation only in the very loosest sense of the word. FTR, it is not the translation I prefer, but it is far from problemmatic. It is explicity as to what it is talking about.

3. According to who? MacArthur is no slouch and neither is the Master's Seminary. Robert Thomas wrote an article about the theory behind DE. Very good stuff.
I didn't say MacArthur or the Master's was a slouch. I do not believe either are. I did not hear nor read his comments so I don't know. I was operating off of what you said. There have been many good defenses of the type of DE practiced in the NIV. As I said, it is marginal DE, not a full DE.

I stand by my statement that the NIV is a commentary and not Scripture. Only that which translates the words that God chose into its corresponding word(s) in their own language can be considered faithful.[/quyote]I completely disagree with your last statement. In fact, everyone does. If you want proof, read the OT Hebrew and compare it with your English translations, particuarly when an age is given for someone. There is not one English translation that translates faithfully by your definition. Every single English translation that I know practices DE here and with good reason ... translating exact words means nothing of the words don't make sense.

IF DE must be used, it must be rare.
I agree and I think the NIV uses it pretty rarely.

If I have a text, and I communicate what I think the original authors meant, you wouldn't think that that was actually God speaking. That is what the NIV does.
I think you would have a hard time making this accusation stick. The NIV simply does not do this to the degree that people would like for it too. I have no particulay affinity for the NIV. I don't preach from it and don't study it. I read it. But let's be careful not to overstate the case. I have issues with some things in the NIV, but we shouldn't make it look worse than it is.
 

Pastork

New Member
Taufgesinnter,

Several points could stand to be made here with regard to the interpretation of the exceptive clause in Matt. 19:9:

1. I am not sure why you say that porneia is being used here "in contrast" to moicheia. I agree that it is not being used with precisely the same meaning as moicheia in this verse, but as a grounds for divorce in this passage it certainly comes close to a synonymous usage. This understanding is also commonly reflected in the standard lexical works, such as BAGD3 ("Of the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman Mt 5:32; 19:9,#6114) and the Friberg Greek Lexicon ("(3) as a synonym for moiceia, (marital) unfaithfulness, adultery [MT 5.32], #22667).

2. You have correctly noted: "Jesus exactly did not say moicheia; He explicitly said porneia. If He had meant to say moicheia, He would have said moicheia. He did not." I could not agree more. Jesus had a reason for using the term porneia here as a grounds for divorce:

First, as noted already, it definitely would have been understood here as meaning essentially the same thing as moicheia, except that it is a term which often was used to refer to prostitution and is therefore used by Jesus to characterize marital unfaithfulness in the worst possible light. This is akin to the angry husband you might meet today who accuses his cheating wife of "acting like a whore."

Second, this use of porneia comes right from its usage in the LXX, which often refers to marital unfaithfulness as harlotry. See, for example, Jeremiah 3:6-9:

"6 The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: "Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot ( porneuo ). 7 "And I said, after she had done all these things, 'Return to Me.' But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery ( moichao ), I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also ( porneuo ). 9 "So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry ( porneia ), that she defiled the land and committed adultery ( moicheuo ) with stones and trees."

It is clear from this passage that porneia/porneuo is used almost interchangeably for moicheia/moichao/moicheuo and that porneia is the grounds for the charge of moicheia and thus for God's having given Israel a writing of divorcement. It is my contention that Jesus is using the terminology in precisely the way it was used in the LXX and would easily have been understood in this light by those to whom He was speaking. Jesus makes the same exception for divorce that the LORD had given to Israel in the Old Testament. Frankly, I am surprised that you would bring up the idea that those of my position would argue "from the original Semitic (whether you believe it to be Hebrew or Aramaic)" and miss altogether the importance of the LXX usage of the actual Greek word.

Gunther,


The context is dealing with the divorce of those already married, not simply betrothed, for it is a part of a discussion of the meaning of Deut. 24:1-4 (see vs.7), which is focused upon divorce and remarriage. Jesus is dealing with the meaning of the O.T. law as given by Moses, not the later ideas about a "betrothal" period such as you assert.

Pastork
 

Gunther

New Member
I do not hold to the betrothal view actually.

However, I do agree that Christ was interpreting the O.T. Now, where in the O.T. does it talk about sexual sins and lay out what God says about them? Lev. 18-19.

Note the conversation in Matthew 19.

Pharisees: can we divorce for any reason?

Christ: No. God's design has always been one man for one woman (and vice versa) until DEATH part the two. Therefore, don't divide them.

Pharisees: why did Moses command us to divorce?

Christ: he didn't. A concession was made for the hardness of your hearts (why people divorce).

The "exception clause" was to show that the only legitimate divorces in the mind of God are those that divide "sexual immorality". That is why the NIV is WRONG in this text.
 

Pastork

New Member
Originally posted by Gunther:
The "exception clause" was to show that the only legitimate divorces in the mind of God are those that divide "sexual immorality". That is why the NIV is WRONG in this text.
In the first sentence you seem to say just what the NIV seems to say (for "marital unfaithfulness" is sexual immorality), but in the second sentence you say the NIV is "WRONG." I don't think I am following your train of thought. Could you explain this point a little more?

By the way, I am not a fan of the NIV myself because I prefer a formal equivalence approach. Actually, I suspect we are not too far apart in our views here. ;)
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Gunther:
So why did the NIV translators take it upon themselves to 'interpret' this word for us by making it refer to 'marital unfaithfulness' (which does not demand sexual immorality).

It is an interpretation. Repeat after me...
Ever seen anyone ever translate from one language to another without interpretation?

Tpo prove my point ask a spanish speaker to translate, "como estas?" and "como esta?" Then ask that same person to translate without any interpretation. Those two questions cannot be accurately translated without any explanation. A literal translation or word for word translation would not be telling the truth without accurate interpretation.
 
Top