The NIV 2011 edition

[Darrell C]

A choice quote:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

Translation: They affirm and avow that even the crudest translation of the Bible in English set forth by competent translators IS the word of God.

And I agree with that.

The objection to "new translations" makes little sense when we consider that in the First Century the Septuagint was utilized even by the Apostles. Of course, one could argue this is not the case, but, I think we have enough internal evidence to make a good case for that.

So the above quote, as I said, I agree with. In other words, even if someone does not wax eloquent in their speech, if they are translating what God conveyed, then it is the Word of God.

Example:

"God said don't do no-one in."

That is the Word of God, no matter that it is crude and fits the vocabulary of a culture that is crude.

Another: "God said not to be stepping out on your wife."

And forgive the crude nature of my examples, lol. Best I can do when I'm in a hurry...


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you really not understand???? It is not a question of putting possibilities into the text, but taking them out.
I am not insisting that everyone has to agree that Psalm 23 and Hebrews 2:5-9 refer to Christ; I am saying that the new NIV precludes anyone from finding Him there. Can you not understand that? What is so difficult about it?

Jesus Himself identified with those passages, did he not?

 

[Yeshua1]

No author cited = no authority.

Don't you understand? If the translators, based on their deliberate study of the context, do not believe there is a reference to Christ --why put in the text? Since 75% of conservative Old Testament scholars believe there is nothing Messianic there --then it should not be placed there.

You are confused. We never dealt with Ps. 23. And as for Heb. 2 -- verse 9 in the NIV is as clear as the NKJV :
" But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angelsfor 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."

Did Jesus and the Apsotles though see Himself in the OT texts?

 

[Yeshua1]

Y-1, you need to cite the source of the quote. That is, unless you want people to think you actually penned the above. But you can't get away with that.

Do you agree with the points of the cited reference?

 

[Rippon]

Did Jesus and the Apsotles though see Himself in the OT texts?

Why won't you read with comprehension that which you quote?

 

[Rippon]

Do you agree with the points of the cited reference?

Of course not.

You do not need to ask questions when you know the answer.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And in v. 4b, the new has
"who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
and does not change their mind;"

which is wrong grammar - "who" is singular, & "their" is plural. Incorrect English to make it politically correct.

Actually, if one is determined to alter the eternal word of God by changing singulars into plurals, one should at least do it properly. It should read "Who keep an oath even when it hurts, and do not change their mind.."

The butchering of the English language is just awful!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't you understand? If the translators, based on their deliberate study of the context, do not believe there is a reference to Christ --why put in the text? Since 75% of conservative Old Testament scholars believe there is nothing Messianic there --then it should not be placed there.

You seem to be confusing the work of a translator with that of a commentator.
It is not the business of a translator to make assessments of that sort. It is his business to translate the words that are there, and the NIV 2011 fails to do that, and they obscure more than one clear reference to Christ. It would not matter if every single commentator agreed with Carson; the translators translate what's there.

In case you've forgotten, here it is again:

Psalm 8:6. 'You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.'
Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.'

So when the NIV 2011 translates in Hebrews 2:8, 'You have put all things under their feet,' how can it be denied that it is obscuring a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ? They are effectively calling the Apostle Paul a dunce and an ignoramus. Paul has made a clear allusion to Psalm 8 and ascribed its subject matter to the Lord Jesus Christ; the NIV 2011 has obscured it for no better reason than to placate a bunch of feminists who will not be happy until 'Son of Man' is rendered as 'Child of Person.'

You are confused. We never dealt with Ps. 23.

Oops! I meant Psalm 24 (my post #26).

And as for Heb. 2 -- verse 9 in the NIV is as clear as the NKJV :
" But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angelsfor [sic] 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 fact that they get verse 9 right is no compensation for getting verse 8 wretchedly wrong.
But in fact a deeper look reveals real confusion by the translators.
Heb. 2:7. 'You made them [Greek auton: 'Him'] a little lower than the angels.' [Greek brachu ti par'angelous]
Heb. 2:9. '.....Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while.....' [Greek brachu ti par'angelous]
The Greek can mean either 'a little lower than....' or lower.......for a little while' (cf. the NKJV margin), but by translating exactly the same words differently in the two verses, the translators have obscured the reference to Christ even more!! One has to ask why they would want to do that. It is too basic to be accidental. It is true that they give the alternatives in the marginal notes, but not everybody reads them.

 

[Ziggy]

Did Jesus and the Apostles though see Himself in the OT texts?

Lk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, if one is determined to alter the eternal word of God by changing singulars into plurals, one should at least do it properly. It should read "Who keep an oath even when it hurts, and do not change their mind.."

Actually you don't know what you are talking about.

In Psalm 15 of the NIV it keeps to the singular throughout.

Verse 2: The one...
Verse 3: whose tongue utters no slander,
who does no wrong to a neighbour,
and casts no slur on others;

[You wouldn't say "cast no slur" because it's dealing with the singular case.]

Verse 4: who despises a vile person
but honours those who fear the LORD;
who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
and does not change their mind.

[When speaking of an individual as the NIV is doing here it would be absurd to say, as you suggested:Who keep an oath...]

Verse 5 : who lends money to the poor without interest;
who does not accept a bribe against the innocent.

Whoever does these things
will never be shaken.

[When referencing a person it would be ungrammatical to say who lend money to the poor. So when you feel in the mood to denigrate a fine translation make sure you don't make a dunce of yourself in the process.]

 

[rlvaughn]

...I have corrected MM's mistaken belive regaring the use of the singular they, them and their. Those words have a fine pedigree in the English language. It is incorrect for you to say the usage is incorrect.

The usage of such has nothing to do with political correctness -- it's just common sense. Those words have been used in the same form and fashion for a long, long time till the present day. You can't fight it unless you want to tilt at windmills.

You are correct that singular they --regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect -- has long standing use in the English language. Dennis Baron, author and professor at University of Illinois, indicates its use has been documented back over 650 years.

Although frequently classified by purists as ungrammatical, its use seems undiminished, and it may even be on the rise because it fills an important linguistic niche. In recent years, more and more English speakers have sought a gender-neutral alternative to pronouns that express the traditional male/female binary, turning either to invented pronouns like xe and zie, or to that old stand-by, singular they.

On the other hand, it seems unusual to argue that the revival of its use -- in the face of long teaching that it is incorrect -- is unrelated to political correctness. Of course it is. As to the specific reason the NIV translators chose it, I do not know. But we are all affected by "politically correct" changes in our society.

 

[Rippon]

You are correct that singular they --regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect -- has long standing use in the English language. Dennis Baron, author and professor at University of Illinois, indicates its use has been documented back over 650 years.

Yes indeed.

On the other hand, it seems unusual to argue that the revival of its use

If it has been in use for 650 years then it is not a revival.

-- in the face of long teaching that it is incorrect -- is unrelated to political correctness. Of course it is. As to the specific reason the NIV translators chose it, I do not know. But we are all affected by "politically correct" changes in our society.

I am so tired of that PC charge --that's fake news.

 

[Rippon]

I will quote yet again from one of my favorite books : How To choose A translation For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. ( The book was published when the TNIV was in use.)

"To address this issue, we must consider the meaning of the psalm both in its Old Testament context and in its application to Jesus in Hebrews 2. It can hardly by denied that the psalmist is speaking inclusively rather than exclusively in Psalm 8. He does not mean, 'What are males...' but rather 'What are human beings...' All commentators agree that 'enosh and ben 'adam are generic references to humanity.

Most commentators also agree that this same meaning applies to the use of the psalm in Hebrews 2:6-8. The author is not claiming that the psalm refers exclusively to Christ, but that the destiny of humanity as expressed in the psalm ('to be crowned with glory and honor,' vv. 6-8) has been fulfilled in Christ (v. 9). The reference to 'him' in verse 8 is not to Jesus but to humankind. Though man's (= humanity's) original destiny was to be crowned with glory and honor and for creation to be subject to him (see Gen. 1:28), 'at present we do not see everything subject to him.' In its present fallen state, humanity has not achieved its true destiny.

Jesus, however, through his suffering and death has fulfilled the ultimate destiny of humanity by being made for a time 'a little lower than the angels,' but now 'crowned with glory and honor' (vv. 7,9). William Lane sums up well" 'In Jesus we see exhibited humanity's true vocation. In an extraordinary way he fulfills God's design for all creation and displays what had always been intended for all humankind, according to Ps. 8.' 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 Hebrew 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (pages 106 and 107)

 

[rlvaughn]

If it has been in use for 650 years then it is not a revival.

That's like saying since Christianity has been around 2000 years we don't need revival, or if a church has been in existence for 200 years it doesn't need revival. Both English experts and the NIV translators recognize/recognized that the use of singular they has been embraced and has expanded in modern times. In The language of gender at Oxford English Dictionaries, we find:

Some people object to this use on the grounds that it's ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn't new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It's increasingly common in current English and is now gaining wider acceptance in both writing and speech. (emphasis mine)

The translators say as much in their preface to the NIV:

This generic use of the “indefinite” or “singular” “they/them/their” has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. (emphasis mine)

I am so tired of that PC charge --that's fake news.

Whether it is news or not, there is nothing fake about it. We, in our speech and writing, are affected by the changes in gender language. Now it is needful to realize that the political correctness was mediated to us through the translational philosophy of using modern updated language. The committee studied "the contemporary use of gender language." They explain:

"Working with some of the world’s leading experts in computational linguistics and using cutting-edge techniques developed specifically for this project, the committee gained an authoritative, and hitherto unavailable, perspective on the contemporary use of gender language—including terms for the human race and subgroups of the human race, pronoun selections following various words and phrases, the use of ‟man” as a singular generic and the use of ‟father(s)” and ‟forefather(s)” as compared to ancestor(s). The project tracked usage and acceptability for each word and phrase over a twenty-year period and also analyzed similarities and differences across different forms of English: for example, UK English, US English, written English, spoken English, and even the English used in a wide variety of evangelical books, sermons and internet sites." -- Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation

The primary reason that singular they has been widely accepted is because of the gender language wars.

"It's very important to make sure that you don't offend people by inadvertently using language that might be considered sexist. In recent decades, some previously established words and expressions have come to be seen as discriminating against women - either because they are based on male terminology or because they appear to give women a status that is less important than the male equivalent...Nowadays, it's often very important to use language which implicitly or explicitly includes both men and women, making no distinction between the two different genders...You can use the plural pronouns they, them, their, etc., despite the fact that they are referring back to a singular noun... " -- The language of gender

So to speak of political correctness in this gender language is not to charge that the committee came together with a feminist-transgender-queer ideology to deliberately insert into the Bible. Rather, they decided to translate (in some cases, not always consistently) into English in a way that the language has already adopted gender inclusive views (which have come to the forefront for mostly politically correct reasons). Speaking for himself, NIV committee member Craig Blomberg wrote, "After over a decade since the NIVI Britain’s first stab at an evangelical, inclusive language translation was produced, I am convinced more than ever that it is the right way to go."

So I see no reason to deny it. If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course not.

You do not need to ask questions when you know the answer.

Even though it is true?

 

[Yeshua1]

You seem to be confusing the work of a translator with that of a commentator.
It is not the business of a translator to make assessments of that sort. It is his business to translate the words that are there, and the NIV 2011 fails to do that, and they obscure more than one clear reference to Christ. It would not matter if every single commentator agreed with Carson; the translators translate what's there.

In case you've forgotten, here it is again:

Psalm 8:6. 'You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.'
Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.'

So when the NIV 2011 translates in Hebrews 2:8, 'You have put all things under their feet,' how can it be denied that it is obscuring a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ? They are effectively calling the Apostle Paul a dunce and an ignoramus. Paul has made a clear allusion to Psalm 8 and ascribed its subject matter to the Lord Jesus Christ; the NIV 2011 has obscured it for no better reason than to placate a bunch of feminists who will not be happy until 'Son of Man' is rendered as 'Child of Person.'


Oops! I meant Psalm 24 (my post #26).

The fact that they get verse 9 right is no compensation for getting verse 8 wretchedly wrong.
But in fact a deeper look reveals real confusion by the translators.
Heb. 2:7. 'You made them [Greek auton: 'Him'] a little lower than the angels.' [Greek brachu ti par'angelous]
Heb. 2:9. '.....Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while.....' [Greek brachu ti par'angelous]
The Greek can mean either 'a little lower than....' or lower.......for a little while' (cf. the NKJV margin), but by translating exactly the same words differently in the two verses, the translators have obscured the reference to Christ even more!! One has to ask why they would want to do that. It is too basic to be accidental. It is true that they give the alternatives in the marginal notes, but not everybody reads them.

The duty of the translator is to give to the reader what was written sown as close as possible to the Original languages texts, and without remaking as what they either think or wished it stated!

 

[Yeshua1]

I will quote yet again from one of my favorite books : How To choose A translation For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. ( The book was published when the TNIV was in use.)

"To address this issue, we must consider the meaning of the psalm both in its Old Testament context and in its application to Jesus in Hebrews 2. It can hardly by denied that the psalmist is speaking inclusively rather than exclusively in Psalm 8. He does not mean, 'What are males...' but rather 'What are human beings...' All commentators agree that 'enosh and ben 'adam are generic references to humanity.

Most commentators also agree that this same meaning applies to the use of the psalm in Hebrews 2:6-8. The author is not claiming that the psalm refers exclusively to Christ, but that the destiny of humanity as expressed in the psalm ('to be crowned with glory and honor,' vv. 6-8) has been fulfilled in Christ (v. 9). The reference to 'him' in verse 8 is not to Jesus but to humankind. Though man's (= humanity's) original destiny was to be crowned with glory and honor and for creation to be subject to him (see Gen. 1:28), 'at present we do not see everything subject to him.' In its present fallen state, humanity has not achieved its true destiny.

Jesus, however, through his suffering and death has fulfilled the ultimate destiny of humanity by being made for a time 'a little lower than the angels,' but now 'crowned with glory and honor' (vv. 7,9). William Lane sums up well" 'In Jesus we see exhibited humanity's true vocation. In an extraordinary way he fulfills God's design for all creation and displays what had always been intended for all humankind, according to Ps. 8.' 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 Hebrew 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (pages 106 and 107)

 

[Yeshua1]

Translators can either make it so that both Jesus and geneal humanity in view, or just Jesus, but not exclude him!

 

[Yeshua1]

Lk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

Since Jesus saw Himself in there, why wouldn't we?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I will quote yet again from one of my favorite books : How To choose A translation For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss.

Mark Strauss I do not know, but I wouldn't give you tuppence for a Gordon Fee book. I had his commentary on 1 Corinthians at one point and threw it out. He is charismatic and by no means Reformed. Nor would I give you tuppence for that quote in Post #73. He must be aware of 1 Corinthians 1:22 where Paul ascribes Psalm 8:6 to the Lord Jesus Christ. Why does Fee ignore this? Because it would mess his argument up.