-
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!
SBTS Professor: NIV May Not Be Word of God
- Thread starter Jerome
- Start date
Just curious...
Isn't the "word of God" still essentially the Greek/Hebrew texts that we have to translate off/from, so in thatsense ALL competant modern translations would indeed be "word of God" to us today?
I don't think Dr Hamilton is making a mountain out of a moe hill (as other bloggers have suggested.) This is a very big, very important issue.
It goes to the heart of their translation process. (Though I'm certain Rippon already has an apt defense
.) Why remove it and put it in a footnote? Makes zero sense to me.
It goes to the heart of their translation process. (Though I'm certain Rippon already has an apt defense
.) Why remove it and put it in a footnote? Makes zero sense to me.
"Hath" is 3rd person but "I" is first person. You have created a grammatical discordance. "Thee" is singular nominative. You want a plural objective. "Wouldst" is second person. You want first person.
Jerome,you have skewed things considerably. Unfortunately you have shown the same tendency with your imbalanced characterization of Spurgeon over the years.
Jim Hamilton has been over-the-top in his article :NIV 2011 Removes Selah From The Biblical Text. However,he did not say that the 2011 NIV may not be the Word of God. His contention is that since the word Selah is in the footnotes and not in the text then it does not faithfully represent the Word of God in those instances. I'm sure he would like to cast a larger net --but it doesn't reflect your thread title.
I respect Rod Decker's work over the years. I visit his site regularly and have benefited from his wisdom. His original article which he didn't intend to be controversial at all spawned Jim Hamilton's response. But the later has since removed some of his more vitriolic language since his original posting, thankfully.
By the way,what do folks think of the rendering of the HCSB's of Philippians 2:7? (It's the start of 2:8 in the 2011 NIV)
HCSB : And when He had come as a man in His external form,
2011 NIV : And being found in appearance as a man
The implication might be :"Was the humanity of Jesus just a shell?" If so,that smacks of Docetism. I seriously doubt that the translator(s) of that version meant what it can easily be interpreted. But would it be fair to say that the HCSB is not the Word of God because of that rendering? Of course not.
To put "Selah" in the footnotes instead of the text is not a sign of any liberal tendencies or for anyone to say it is not a faithful translation of the Word of God because of that translational decision. We don't even know if that word was voiced as such in Old Testament times. It certainly doesn't affect the meaning of the text in the Psalms.
Jim Hamilton has been over-the-top in his article :NIV 2011 Removes Selah From The Biblical Text. However,he did not say that the 2011 NIV may not be the Word of God. His contention is that since the word Selah is in the footnotes and not in the text then it does not faithfully represent the Word of God in those instances. I'm sure he would like to cast a larger net --but it doesn't reflect your thread title.
I respect Rod Decker's work over the years. I visit his site regularly and have benefited from his wisdom. His original article which he didn't intend to be controversial at all spawned Jim Hamilton's response. But the later has since removed some of his more vitriolic language since his original posting, thankfully.
By the way,what do folks think of the rendering of the HCSB's of Philippians 2:7? (It's the start of 2:8 in the 2011 NIV)
HCSB : And when He had come as a man in His external form,
2011 NIV : And being found in appearance as a man
The implication might be :"Was the humanity of Jesus just a shell?" If so,that smacks of Docetism. I seriously doubt that the translator(s) of that version meant what it can easily be interpreted. But would it be fair to say that the HCSB is not the Word of God because of that rendering? Of course not.
To put "Selah" in the footnotes instead of the text is not a sign of any liberal tendencies or for anyone to say it is not a faithful translation of the Word of God because of that translational decision. We don't even know if that word was voiced as such in Old Testament times. It certainly doesn't affect the meaning of the text in the Psalms.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. But I made a funny. That's what I do.
Decker's reply is a good moderating voice in this discussion. I too would recommend it.
Rippon said:
Yet Selah is in the Hebrew text. It doesn't appear as a variant. Though it has a wide ranging meaning and usefulness, it is likely a musical or poetic device within the text. The JPS Torah notes that it is used only in the Pslams and it understood as a pause or interlude (the JPS points out the LXX use here.) Seems that the NIV11 translators have sought to remove an aspect of the text that was left there by the divinely inspired writer. It isn't some minor thing.
The next question is: in performing a musical work by, say Mozart, are we faithful to his work if we decide to leave out the "extraneous" things like crescendos, decrescendos, and other notes on dynamics of performance?
Not musically talented, but regarding it being removed inthe NIV 2011, does it alter any doctrines in the Bible, or any other information?
In the psalms, we don't have the music, so we don't have anything like the classical junk you mention. What does the word in question even mean?-- pause, interlude, you say? Then if you think it has to be there, why not DO it instead make such a deal about printing it? If we had to sing "forte", "fine'", et al, as we sing songs because those words are there-- or even if we read as we just read the lyrics-- that rather interrupts the flow...........selah...........doesn't it?
The Psalms are songs, therefore they are music. If the word selah is in the original Hebrew, it should be included in the text and not removed off to the side. You don't have to speak it when reading the Psalms aloud.
They're grasping at straws. JM is an ESV guy. And it seems a growing number of ESV'ers are 2011 NIV bashers. You'd think they would have more constructive things to devote their energies to. They make it seem as if the 2011 NIV is the anti-Bible.
They're probably making a "moe Hil [sic] out of the situation too.
Reasonable,conservative scholars differ with your conclusion.
Read Decker's article and follow-up for a good explanation.
The last statement in that paragraph is accurate if we understand it in its context. The statement, “We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original,” is correct in so far as it goes.
But yes, you are right that the Word of God is preserved for us today, not in translations, but in the superabundance of texts providentially preserved for us and available to us today.
But I have never liked the NIV. It is too dynamic in its theory of translation.
I prefer versions like the NASB, the NKJV, the KJV, the ESV, etc... that seek to be more literal in their approach.
Someone will no doubt read this too fast and make a counterpoint which will address nothing more than a strawman. The counterpoint will be something to the effect of, "No translation is literal. ALL translations are dynamic. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that, yada, yada,yada, yada..."
To which I will go ahead and respond in advance- I know that. I am not saying otherwise. But there are translations like the NLT and The Message which could hardly care less about the original words. Then there are translations like the NASB which care a great deal about the original words. Those are the better translations. The NIV falls too far on the former end of the spectrum to garner my support and confidence. It is obviously not as bad as the NLT, but it is too dynamic for my liking.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree once again.
So have you examined the 2011 NIV ? If you think it is too dynamic maybe you need to reexamine how dynamic versions like the ESV really. It is quite amusing to see folks spouting-off about the NIV as if it is so different from the ESV for instance. Yet despite the fact that the NIV is easier to read it is still not that much further along the continuum than the ESV and is closer still to the HCSB and NET Bible.
It's a matter of degree --it's not the NIV is a whole other species.
You are overstepping Luke. You are making absurd claims. Are you familiar with the translators of the NLTse? It seems like you don't at all. They are all conservative Bible scholars. Most Bibles translated into foreign languages are more dynamic than the quasi-literal ones.
The Message shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the NLTse. The latter is closer to the ESV than it is to the Message.
That's a value judgement that really is a matter of your opinion -- and a wrong opinion at that. Tell that viewpoint of yours to the NLTse translators and you'll be brought up short Luke.
You prefer translations like the ESV,NKJV etc. -- It's your personal preference. Meaning-based translations have a lot to offer the Bible reading public vs. the more formally-equivalent which are sometimes hampered by their methodology.
Just read what I wrote earlier.
As I said before,you don't understand what you are saying. The NIV is much closer to the ESV and NASB than you know.
govteach51
New Member
The sad part is they really do not know what Selah means...I remember being in the seminary and the OT professor discuss the word for about 5-7 minutes. I was more confused afterwards than before. I asked my fellow students if they understood, and none did...there was a MCM major taking the class and he said, without the music, we won't....
No, I haven't.
It is common knowledge that the NIV is more dynamic.
I don't disagree. I don't think the NIV is horrific like others. I just think it takes too many liberties.
Well, at least you recognize there is a spectrum and the Message is on one end.
I'm telling it to you. I am humble enough to realize I don't stand a chance debating people on this issue who are qualified to translate the Scripture. But I am confident in men like those who translated the NKJV who argue for more formal-equivalence. I am also confortable with the idea that the original WORDS are important, not just the thoughts or meanings.
The BEST way to preserve the original meanings is to preserve the original words as much as reasonably possible.
I disagree. Original words are important. Cultural adaptations should be kept to a minimal, imo.
As I said, I thikn the NIV is OK. I just don't like it because it is more dynamic than I think a version should be.
I prefer the NASB for modern translations- and the others I listed with which you disagree.
Last edited by a moderator: