Problems with the NIV

[TomVols]

Pastor Larry wrote:

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.

Excellent point my friend. This is made by a contributor to MacArthur's own book Rediscovering Expository Preaching. There is not that much difference in a translation that barely qualifies as essentially literal and one that is just right of the mark of being dynamic equivalence. All translations utilize some degree of each translation philosophy. It's nebulous to mark where a particular translation fits on the scale sometimes.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

gb: German's loaded with good examples, too.

Aside from the hilarity of translating idioms word for word, check the simplest possible complete sentence--a subject and a verb: Sie schwimmt.

The valid translations of Sie schwimmt are:

She swims./She swimmeth.
She is swimming./She's swimming./She swimming./She be swimming.
She does swim./She doth swim.

Add an adverb:

She swims now./She swimmeth now.
She is swimming now./She's swimming now./etc.
She does swim now./She doth swim now.
She is going to swim now./etc.
She is going swimming now./etc.
She is going to go swimming now./etc.
Now she is going swimming!/etc.
et cetera, et cetera

One more example and I'll stop--Sie gehen:

You go./Thou goest./Ye go./Y'all go.
You are going./Thou art going./Ye are going./Y'all are going./etc.
You do go./Thou dost go./Ye do go./etc.
They go./They are going./etc.
Now change "go" to "leav(e)."
Now change "leav(e)" to "walk," and add:
You are going to take a walk./etc.
You are going for a walk./etc.
You are going to go for a walk./etc.
They are going to.... etc.

And if you were going the other way, from English into German? You'd have to decide in each of those cases whether it meant plural or singular, and polite or casual, familiar address to be used. If you picked polite, every example above could be simply rendered, "Sie gehen."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Now, where in the O.T. does it talk about sexual sins and lay out what God says about them? Lev. 18-19.

And Deut 22 and 24 as well. The Deut 24 passage talks about divorce without specifying sexual immorality as the reason. It merely talks about an ervath dabar.

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.

Any sexual immorality in marriage is marital unfaithfulness. That is why the NIV is not wrong. It is impossible for a married person to be sexually immoral without being maritally unfaithful. The common usage of "marital unfaithfulness" in our modern society is explicit in its reference to being unfaithful by being involved with someone other than your spouse.

 

[HankD]

Any sexual immorality in marriage is marital unfaithfulness. That is why the NIV is not wrong. It is impossible for a married person to be sexually immoral without being maritally unfaithful. The common usage of "marital unfaithfulness" in our modern society is explicit in its reference to being unfaithful by being involved with someone other than your spouse.

This is pointedly appropriate for this day and age when someone's spouse runs away with a person of the same sex in order to establish a same sex relationship thereby breaking the marriage covenant.

HankD

 

[Gunther]

Larry, all sexual immorality within marriage is indeed marital unfaithfulness. However, not all marital unfaithfulness is sexual immorality.

This is my point. The NIV translators made an interpretive decision here that broadened divorce further that the actual words of Christ.

What if one spouse says that the other is unfaithful in their marital roles (but not in a sexual way)? Is he allowed to divorce his wife?

This is one corner that I am glad I did not paint myself into.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Larry, all sexual immorality within marriage is indeed marital unfaithfulness. However, not all marital unfaithfulness is sexual immorality.

This is my point. The NIV translators made an interpretive decision here that broadened divorce further that the actual words of Christ.

You are not understanding the issue of context. In this context, marital unfaithfulness (no matter what you call it) is sexual. This is not about bringing home a paycheck or drinking. It is about sex and "marital unfaithfulness" in modern terminology is about sex.

[quiote]What if one spouse says that the other is unfaithful in their marital roles (but not in a sexual way)? Is he allowed to divorce his wife?[/quote]If this claim is made, you would go to another passage, not this one. This passage is about porneia, marital unfaithfulness. The answer to your question is "It depends."

This is one corner that I am glad I did not paint myself into.

I don't understand your reference getting painted into a corner.

This passage is about divorce and Christ tells us what gives an exception -- marital unfaithfulness. I assume that the reason the NIV translators chose that translation is that the words "marital unfaithfulness" are universally understood as a sexual unfaithfulness. To see something else in those words is truly a work fo genius. Most people, when they read that passage, know exactly what it is talking about.