Featured The NIV 2011 edition

Already stated disliked how they put Son of man as not being Jesus, but more like Corporate Mankind!

 

That is why still prefer those versions such as Nasb/Nkjv as both if them were devoid of this inclusive language to a large extent!

 

Mr. Y, address the above. Read with comprehension.

 

Hmmm, the 1977 NASB is not available, the 1996 NLT isn't, the 2001 ESV isn't etc. It seems like you are complaining about something not worth complaining about.

 

I had addressed Y-1 with the above on March 3. He still hasn't done his homework.

 

There are some good things about the NIV 2011. The translation of Philippians 2:6 has been weak in almost every translation. The problem is the Greek word, harpagmos, rendered ‘something to be grasped’ in the 1984 NIV. Harpagmos appears nowhere else in the N.T. and is therefore very hard to translate. Its root suggests grasping, snatching or holding, and other translations have used words like ‘robbery.’ However, recent studies of the word’s use outside of the Bible have shown that it means ‘something held to one’s advantage,’ rather like a ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card when playing Monopoly. So when the new NIV translates the verse, ‘Who….did not consider equality with God something to be used to his advantage’ it has it almost right, though I believe that ‘held’ rather than ‘used’ would be better still.

I suppose that substituting ‘foreigner’ for ‘alien’ may be an improvement, though I wonder how many people really think that ‘alien’ always means an extra-terrestial. However another change is less good in my opinion::
Phil. 4:13, NIV 1984. ‘I can do everything through him who gives me strength.’
Phil. 4:13, NIV 2011. ‘I can do all this through him who gives me strength.’
The word ‘this’ is not in the original. The Holy Spirit says, ‘Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar’ (Prov. 30:6). If the NIV followed the A.V. and NKJV in putting added words in italics, it might be permissible as it would allow the reader to make his own decision, but the original does not limit Paul’s ability to those things mentioned in the previous verse. The NKJV is better than either of these, however: ‘I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.’ ‘All things’ here means not every single thing in the world, but all manner of things that God might lead Paul to do.

More importantly, we come to the question of using the plural, ‘they’ and ‘them’ to avoid the use of ‘he’ and ‘him’ when the reference may be to both males and females. Firstly, do we have the right to muck about with the word of God in this way, changing singular into plural? I don’t believe we do. Masculine pronouns are used in almost every language to refer to male and female together. Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists who mostly don’t believe in God anyway? For make no mistake, that’s what this is all about, and the feminists will not be happy until we are saying, “Our Parent who art in heaven” and speaking of Christ the only begotten Child, and probably not even then!

The NIV 2011 translation of Gen 4:15, seems OK, but here are two examples have serious problems; the one, aesthetically and grammatically; the other, theologically.

John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics)

Am I the only one who finds that rendering unbearably grating? I don’t believe I could bring myself to read it out loud! The very basics of English grammar have been brutally sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness. If one absolutely has to use the plural then I suppose one could try, “Those who believe in me will live even though they die.” This at least has the benefit of being grammatical. But that is not what the Holy Spirit wrote! For His own high purposes He used the singular, and it is not for us mere mortals to play fast and loose with the text to satisfy the equality fascists. We don’t do it to secular texts like Chaucer or Shakespeare; why is it acceptable to do it to the Bible? The new NIV has, quite rightly, sought to limit its gratuitous use of the Plural, but in doing so it has made a dog’s breakfast of the English language.

There are loads of other texts where the singular and plural are mangled together in this ghastly way. I offer just one more: ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favour with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ (Job 33:26). Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.

The next example is even more worrying.

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honour
and put everything under their feet.”
In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.

Psalm 24:3-5 presents similar problems:-

Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

I believe that these verses are about the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that. But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

I believe that the new NIV translation is driven by a desire to be accepted by the secular world. Yet the Holy Spirit tells us, ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God’ (Rom 12:2. cf. 1 John 2:15). We must not conform to the world’s standards; they may come to us, but we must not go to them (Jer 15:19).

 

One of my most valuable books is : The Challenge of Bible Translation. In it a chapter by D. A. Carson is magnificent.
It's called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation.

He wrote at the time of the TNIV, so that has to be taken in consideration. But his points remain convincing.

"The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13-14)but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. (Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that the 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length it is). Jesus is said to be 'son of man' not in function of the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being -- which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack -- that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent scholars who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here." (p.88)

 

Continuing D.A. Cason's article:

"One could even imagine a more subtle argument, one which I would have some sympathy: It is possible to see in 'son of man' in Psalm 8:4 a gentilic. rightly preserved in Hebrews 2, and then wonder if, owing to the frequency of 'son of man' as a messianic title in the Synoptic Gospel, early Christian ears might have picked up an additional overtone, without reading a messianic interpretation into the entire passage. This is possible, though hard to prove. The possibility could be accommodated by a footnote cue after 'human beings' in the TNIV, the footnote itself reading 'Or, son of man.' But at the level of actual translation, it is difficult to find legitimate reasons for condemning the TNIV in such absolutist terms." (pages 88,89)

In the 2011 NIV the footnote reads :"Or what is a human being that you are mindful of him,/ a son of man that you care for him?"

 

You make completely unfounded, sinful leaps like this quite often.

Case in point.

I have proven you wrong in another thread on this subject.

In verse 8 it refers to human beings --not Jesus.
As Fee and Strauss say in their book : How To Choose A Translation For all Its Worth "Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews , is about God's intention for humanity, Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (pages 106,107)

Make sure to do your homework and not to mistakenly confuse Christ for people. I remember that Charles Spurgeon said that though he loved to and valued Robert Hawker, the latter found Christ where he was not present much of the time.

EXB, NCV, NLT,NRSV all read "They will receive..."
CEB : "That kind of person..."
NET : Such godly people..."
ISV : "This person..."

You are dead wrong.

An unfounded sinful leap yet again by your fingertips.

 

Rippon, dear brother,
You and I have known each other on line for many years, and we are in agreement on most theological subjects.
However, we are never going to agree on translations; but let us at least try to be kind to each other and believe the best of each other's motives. OK?

I won't reply to you post #29, because it would only increase your ire against me and I would hate to be the cause of increased blood pressure. I will however respond to D. A. Carson:

I fully agree with this. I seems clear to me that Hebrews 2:8-9 is referencing the Lord Jesus as the Son of Man. But if a person so eminent as Carson takes a different view, I am not going make it an article of faith, nor did I suggest any such thing..

However.......

My point is that the 2011 NIV and other 'gender-neutral' translations have taken away the ability of anyone who does not have access to the Greek to find the Lord Jesus as Son of man is those verses. By using the plural, where there is no plural in the original, they are obliterating a possible reference to Christ and forcing Carson's conclusion, which he himself admits is not universally agreed by 'competent scholars,' upon everybody who reads the NIV 2011. That is very wrong.

 

Yet you bring reproach on the NIV translators and readers. You repeatedly assign the most abominable of motives time and time again.

Ever since the original NIV N.T. came out in 1973 he has been a fan of the family. The 2011NIV is what he preaches from in every pulpit.

You didn't read Dr. Carson's words very carefully.

"Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent -- which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural."

Did you miss the fact that he said 75% of his commentaries on Hebrews do not think that the 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title?

 

I have accused them of pandering to a secular political correctness. If that is 'the most abominable of motives' the so be it.

Well no one's perfect, I suppose. Actually, I thought he was using the ESV when he spoke at Aberystwyth in 2014, but I could be wrong.

None of this addresses my point.

 

The study notes and aids are pretty much same as in the Esv study bible, and since I prefer that version over the new Niv, would recommend that one instead!

The new Niv into Inclusive renderings, and would say that the esv bible is Reformed/calvinistic, Niv one more like Evangelical!

 

Yes

 

I never stated that the Niv was a bad version, jsut that as a Baptist, we shoudl value the 1984 edition over the 2011 one, and both Nkjv/Nasb superior to use than either Niv edition!

 

If you want me to embarrass you with all of the nasty things you have said of the NIV --translators and readers alike --being under your scorn -- that can be arranged.

It exactly hits the point. You have studiously avoided interacting with what he said.

 

Y-1 and his ways:

On March 3 I challenged him to provide examples from the CSB of taking inclusive language too far.
After all, if one condemns something one must offer proof.

The next day, March 4, in post 21, he quoted my post without addressing what I said whatsoever.

So, in post 23 I quoted my initial post for him again.

Again, on April 13, in post 25, I repeated my original post for him.

Then, amazingly, today, in post 35 he quoted my March 3rd post. And AGAIN, with absolutely no interaction with what I said.

How is it that a poster supposedly in dialog with others, can quote entire posts from a host of posters and yet
not deal with what they have written? It's beyond belief. At the very least it shows utter neglect. And it shows a character defect as well.

Why bother to quote someone if you have no inclination to respond to the content of what you have quoted?

 

What in the world has a preference for the 84 NIV have to do with being a Baptist? You come up with some crazy notions and odd connections.

 

Many Baptists have a big problem with overboard inclusive language in translations, see the SBC!

 

I prefer the 84.

But I prefer the KJV over that. Both have their uses.


God bless.