Report: 75 Percent of TNIV Gender-Related Problems in Updated NIV Bible

[jonathan.borland]

Again we have a failure to communicate here.

For some reason you don't or can't or are unwilling to get it. My post simply said that the new NIV can't even be trusted always to give good English renderings, much less the best possible rendering of the meaning. That's what the following means: "As the article mentioned in the OP documents, and as just a few of the examples posted in this thread show, the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English."

 

[jonathan.borland]

If you get confused with the rendering in the 2011 NIV then you're not able to understand basic English that is used these days (but reaching back into the past for precedence).

Your claims are stretching at the seams.

My claim is that the renderings of the new NIV are often not as clear or accurate as those in other versions, not that they are often inaccurate.

2011 NIV Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

1989 NRSV Revelation 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.

Renderings in the new NIV can't confuse me, but the point is that it's often not as clear as the parallel renderings in other versions or even its own predecessor. And if it's a step down in quality, clearness, responsible rendering of the Greek, then why buy or even read it as opposed to other versions of higher quality, clarity, and integrity?

 

[jonathan.borland]

You simply see other versions as having accurate renderings with more regularity than the 2011 NIV.

So you actually understood my posts, but pretended like you didn't. Why all the fuss?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Mark 1:40–42 in the new NIV

40 A man with leprosy[h] came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleans

Mark 1:40–42 in the NRSV

40 A leper* came to him begging him, and kneeling* he said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.’

41 Moved with pity,* Jesus* stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’

42 Immediately the leprosy* left him, and he was made clean.

The textual decisions of the new NIV cannot always be trusted. In this case, the only Greek manuscript (out of 1600 that have survived here) to have what the NIV renders as "indignant" is Codex Bezae from the 5th century. It's a bilingual Bible with an old Latin text, from which the reading was most likely retro-translated back into Greek at this place (as in multitudinous places elsewhere). Otherwise, no Greek manuscripts would have what is represented in the new NIV.

 

[Rippon]

... the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English.

No doubt it is usually accurate, but with so many other more accurate versions available today, why should readers settle for a version that is just usually accurate?

Here you are again. This is to refresh your memory. The above two quotes of yours are contradictory.

 

[Rippon]

So you actually understood my posts, but pretended like you didn't. Why all the fuss?

You are bearing false witness. I still don't understand your inconsistency.And I don't understand your quibbles when you have maintained that the renderings in the 2011 NIV are usually accurate.

 

[Rippon]

The textual decisions of the new NIV cannot always be trusted.

What a more reasonable thing to state is that you disagree with some dicisions of the 2011 NIV translation team.

When someone objects to the textual decisions of the ESV for example should they say the ESV can't be trusted? Of course not.You need to restrain yourself.

The NET notes for the controversial and difficult textual variant in Mark 1:41 contain eleven lines of explanation. It is a very disputed passage. It's not cut and dry as you maintain. I looked and found a number of scholars who say that anger or indignation are better choices than filled with compassion. Check out these scholars; Joel Marcus,David Garland,Ben Witherington,Walter W.Wessel,R.T.France and J.Keith Elliot for starters.

 

[Rippon]

Renderings in the new NIV can't confuse me,

Well then you have wasted a good deal of breath on the topic.

if it's a step down in quality, clearness, responsible rendering of the Greek, then why buy or even read it as opposed to other versions of higher quality, clarity, and integrity?

If is the operative word. You have your objections with various renderings. But there are a number of scholars who would diasagree with you.

Tossing in your 'integrity' remark doesn't evidence integrity on your part.

Quality,clearness and responsible renderings of the Greek are hallmarks of the NIV.

Just what English versions constitute your ideal possessing high quality and clarity?

 

[preachinjesus]

Wow, what a rough thread.

I like a lot of what the CBMW does. It is a good ministry. I will stand toe-to-toe with anyone who says otherwise.

There are some problems in the usage of language in the NIV2010. Specifically in some of the neuterizing of masculine pronouns there is much to be concerned about. Of course let's not forget that a lot of the recent translations also do this.

Jonathan.Borland has brought up some good points of conversation. Specifically in several of his cited passages I don't know how one can move outside of the traditional rendering. I am not saying we should expand our translations where the words are obviously being used generally. For instance when I do my own translation work when I see the word ἀδελφοὶ in certain texts I naturally broaden its use to include men and women. But there are several instances where we need to be careful with our wording.

This is important and shouldn't be disregarded as foolish or pointing out trivialities.

 

[TomVols]

There are some who will dislike the NIV 2011 regardless. That's sad.

There are those who dislike it because they have legitimate issues, and those folks will be painted as "haters." That's sad.

There are folks who just won't appreciate anything the CBMW just because they are who they are. That's sad.

Blindness to facts which leads to people making sweeping generalities are all too prevalent around here on this issue. That's worse than sad.

 

[Jerome]

Let's see if jonathan's schoolmarm notions of pronoun agreement are followed by this "Council" in its own publications.


"Male Authority" by J. Ligon Duncan III (CBMW website):

"The case law in Moses' day forbade Israel to eat shellfish. So, how many of you evangelical Christians are out there eating shrimp and lobster at Red Lobster on Friday night?" And everyone raises their hand

Say what?
Everyone raises whose hand? The waitresses' hand? And "their hand" doesn't even make sense, unless the waitresses are Siamese twins. It breeds confusion, I tell you, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUN "HIS" BECAUSE IT SEEMS OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!



"Not Just Good-Housekeeping: A Case for Christian Hospitality (Part 2)" by Mrs. John Starke (CBMW website):

Everyone looks like they're enjoying themselves.

How grammatically odd!
Whom is everyone enjoying? One's parents? One's kids? One's houseguests?
It really breeds confusion, yes it does, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUNS "HE" and "HIMSELF" BECAUSE THEY SEEM OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!


"Biblical Womanhood" by Eric M. Schumacher (CBMW's scholarly journal):

In Ephesians 5, Paul explains that marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. You can’t be a picture of Christ and the church if one of the characters is out “doing their own thing.”

Huh?
One is out doing their own thing?
Whose thing? His parents' thing? His kids' thing? His countrymen's thing? This breeds utter confusion, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUN "HIS" BECAUSE IT SEEMS OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!

I don't understand your quibbles

Your claims are stretching at the seams.

Indeed.

 

[Rippon]

I like a lot of what the CBMW does. It is a good ministry. I will stand toe-to-toe with anyone who says otherwise.

If you stand toe-to-toe with anyone that means you are of the same mind. You mean stand toe-to-toe against.
It may have some redeeming aspects. But are you keen enough to detect any of its excesses?

There are some problems in the usage of language in the NIV2010.

From your vantage point possibly. But do you acknowledge that other conservative Evangelical and Reformed believers do not share your view and are just as dedicated to the Word of God as you are?

Jonathan.Borland has brought up some good points of conversation. Specifically in several of his cited passages I don't know how one can move outside of the traditional rendering.

Tradional rendering doesn't necesasrily = correct wording. Consult scholarly commentaries before making your denunciations.

This is important and shouldn't be disregarded as foolish or pointing out trivialities.

I'm sorry,but CBMW has devoted some precious time in the past in bashing the TNIV over many trivial items and they are doing so with the new NIV now. That's not to say that they have some legit points on some passages --but the bulk of their stuff is full of fluff.

 

[Rippon]

Jerome,we have had and will have our disagreements, however, your post was right on the mark and I couldn't stop laughing at your insight and the irony of it all.

 

[jonathan.borland]

You are bearing false witness.

It seems you are just reverting to your normal line of defense when you can't, won't, or are unwilling to deal with the actual issues brought up. As far as the pejorative nature of the comments that ooze from your lips, I remember seeing them before in a post on Baptist Board here:

It's really more the way you present your ideas, not the substance of them. Grudem and company generally do not call the translators or their actions "sinfully stupid," "sinfully wrong," "absurdly sinful," "demonizing," "absurdities," "sinful absurdity," "junk," "sinfully audacious," "deliberately, sinfully wrong," "sinful actions," "hyped-up lies," "very sinful," words that you have selected in this thread alone to propagate your opinion, whether right or wrong.

In light of who you are, I really see no reason to continue any dialogue with you. I will continue to point out the deficiencies of the new NIV, showing not how it is an unfaithful translation but rather how it is less faithful, less accurate, less consistent (the true meaning I intended when I used the word "integrity" in a recent post, by the way), and less professional than other versions.

 

[Rippon]

It seems you are just reverting to your normal line of defense when you can't, won't, or are unwilling to deal with the actual issues brought up.

You speak with a forked tongue. I was not pretending at all. You say on the one hand that the new NIV is far from accurate --then you say the opposite --that it is usually accurate. Come down to one side or the other. But it seems as if you you don't want to address the fact that you said that the new NIV is usually accurate.

In light of who you are, I really see no reason to continue any dialogue with you.

Now you make it a personality issue.

I will continue to point out the deficiencies of the new NIV, showing not how it is an unfaithful translation but rather how it is less faithful, less accurate,

You can continue to hold to your convictions and I will hold to mine. But I will say that the new NIV is usually accurate as you once claimed and now apparently want to deny.

less consistent (the true meaning I intended when I used the word "integrity" in a recent post, by the way),

Well pardon me. But the way you put it had the connotation of being morally suspect. Thanks for the clarification. Your particular meaning of the word integrity in the context of your negative statements certainly would suggest to the general audience that the new NIV had some kind of ethical problems.

and less professional than other versions.

What does that mean in your world? Your definition of words leaves something to be desired.

 

[TomVols]

Comparing accepted English language norms with translational philosophy which may affect theology (or vice versa) seems to be a bit of a stretch. That said, a translation should strive to be readable and conform to grammatical rules as much as possible, but not at the expense of theological/translational/textual fidelity.

Used to be, this forum was pretty much dominated by "Bow to the KJV, or you're a heretic." Now, it seems that this has been replaced with "either love the TNIV/NIV '11 or you're a Cretan." Say anything the least bit critical of the TNIV or NIV '11, and you're painted awfully.

Sad. Very sad.

 

[jonathan.borland]

NRSV Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.

old NIV Malachi 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

new NIV Malachi 2:16 "The man who hates and divorces his wife," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "does violence to the one he should protect," says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

Why not be consistent instead of singling out the men? Why not say, "Those who hate and divorce their spouses . . . cover themselves with violence . . . ?" Can a woman not divorce her husband? Why apply the harsh words only to the man? What makes the masculine participles (if indeed they are really masculine participles) actually have validity here but not in so many other places in the Bible? Strange and inconsistent!

 

[jonathan.borland]

NRSV Job 33:23 Then, if there should be for one of them an angel, a mediator, one of a thousand, one who declares a person upright,

new NIV Job 33:23 Yet if there is an angel at their side, a messenger, one out of a thousand, sent to tell them how to be upright,


NRSV Job 33:24 and he is gracious to that person, and says, "Deliver him from going down into the Pit; I have found a ransom;

new NIV Job 33:24 and he is gracious to that person and says to God, ‘Spare them from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for them—


NRSV Job 33:26 then he prays to God, and is accepted by him, he comes into his presence with joy, and God repays him for his righteousness.

new NIV Job 33:26 then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being.

I see the dilemma of the translators. They don't want to lose the personal nature of the biblical applications, but they also don't want to use singular masculine pronouns, so they just drop a "that person" and a singular verb into the middle of sentences to correspond with plural nouns and verbs. Strange, grammatically inconsistent, and the personal nature of the biblical applications is indeed watered down no matter how many "that person"s they sprinkle into their pluralized version.

 

[Deacon]

I've got no cards in this hand, rarely using the NIV for study.

I see the dilemma of the translators. They don't want to lose the personal nature of the biblical applications, but they also don't want to use singular masculine pronouns, so they just drop a "that person" and a singular verb into the middle of sentences to correspond with plural nouns and verbs. Strange, grammatically inconsistent, and the personal nature of the biblical applications is indeed watered down no matter how many "that person"s they sprinkle into their pluralized version.

I too can see the dilemma of translators.

Your thoughts clearly demonstarte the advantage of studying a variety of translations knowing how the various versions deal with these problems.

There are advantages of a literal translation and there are advantages to knowing the full extent of the authors meaning

Rob

 

[rsr]

Why not be consistent instead of singling out the men? Why not say, "Those who hate and divorce their spouses . . . cover themselves with violence . . . ?" Can a woman not divorce her husband? Why apply the harsh words only to the man? What makes the masculine participles (if indeed they are really masculine participles) actually have validity here but not in so many other places in the Bible? Strange and inconsistent!

Perhaps the translators here were more concerned about changing the traditional attribution here and forgot about gender-inclusive language. The new NIV adopts the same rendering as the Holman, which eliminates the "I hate divorce" quotation.

"If he hates and divorces [his wife]," says the LORD God of Israel, "he covers his garment with injustice," says the LORD of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously.