Not surprising.
-
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!
Why is the New International Version Bible translation so popular? What are your thoughts on that?
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
Thank you.
Do you have a source for Fee saying the NIV was more accurate than the NASB & KJB?
Yes, I believe it was a book called "how to read the Bible for all it's worth". I will look for a link.
I "think" it was a older edition of this book.
https://smile.amazon.com/How-Read-B...d=1578159614&sprefix=Gordon+d+,aps,166&sr=8-1
I "think" it was a older edition of this book.
https://smile.amazon.com/How-Read-B...d=1578159614&sprefix=Gordon+d+,aps,166&sr=8-1
Last edited:
He never did say that the Niv was more accurate, but that it was much more readable , and was much better due to that combo of still being reliable and much easier to understand!
Perhaps that was what he said. It was many, many years ago. Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying.
Just_Ahead
Active Member
May the Lord bless you will restorative healing.
I will give a couple below. It is a bit time-consuming to dig through the hard copy for examples, but there is one right where I am studying at present, and I found another fairly easily that I remembered. Hope those will help. I will post below.
Yes, that is correct. Motyer copyrighted his book in 1993, so it is specifically the 1984 NIV to which he is referring, the 2011 being about 8 years in the future at the time. However, it does not change the general fact of Motyer’s thoughts on the NIV, and only specifically changes if the translation of 2011 changed at the place he was making his point. In one of the illustrations below (61:7) it refers in part to what has a slight change (although to me it does not seem to correct all of what Motyer objects to).
It is fair to note that had Motyer used text from a different Bible version, he would have disagreed with that in places as well. I do not recall that Motyer explains why the scripture quotations are from the NIV, but based on some of his comments, it is my impression -- and only an impression -- that it was not his choice but probably the publisher’s choice. Isaiah is part of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series by IVP. (I am not certain that the book I have is exactly the same as the one in the commentary series; I assume but do not know for sure that the NIV is preferred throughout the series.)
Below are excerpts from Isaiah by Motyer, with a couple of comments by me.
On Isaiah 21:3, p. 174
The ‘Therefore’ with which verse 3 opens (omitted by the NIV) links Isaiah’s reaction with the dire vision of verse 2a and looks forward to the further explanation which ‘For’ at the beginning of verse 6 (again, omitted by the NIV) introduces.
On Isaiah 61:7, p. 503 [Motyer begins by saying the beginning is literally, “Instead of your shame, double,” rlv]
My people will receive is an NIV interpretative addition. It would be much better to leave the Hebrew in its abruptness as above. Inheritance/’portion, allocation’[1] is what the Lord has allocated his people. The word double (portion is an interpretative addition) is used in the sense of ‘amply, fully, abundantly’ (cf. Jb. 42:10).
[1] The NIV is sometimes not as careful as it might be in selecting English equivalents for Hebrew words, and this is well illustrated in 61:7de. Inheritance and inherit cloud that fact that two different Hebrew words are involved, neither of which is well translated by our notion of ‘inheriting’. In verse 7d, hēleq is ‘apportionment’ and in verse 7e √yāraš is ‘to come into possession of’.
[Notes: The above footnote is from Motyer. Where 1984 has “my people will receive,” 2011 has “you will receive,” rlv]
Last edited:
alexander284
Well-Known Member
And this is why it continues to maintain it's position as best selling Bible translation.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
And this is why it's the best selling translation!
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I was replying to Yeshua1's comments. See above.
'Complain' is perhaps the wrong word.
Motyer does not comment on the NIV translation as a whole, his comments concern individual translational decisions.
Very telling is Motyer’s preferred use of the New International Version as his English translation in both his commentaries on Isaiah (generally he compares the NIV to his own personal translation and notes why he prefers his own).
Readers should appreciate that because the basis of my exposition is the Hebrew text of Isaiah, I have frequently offered a more literal translation than the NIV. In order to avoid a tiresome repetition of ‘lit.’, I have simply inserted an oblique (/) between the NIV and my own translation. I have used the convention of a square root sign (√) to indicate Hebrew verbal roots. Bible references cited throughout the commentary often relate to points of Hebrew grammar or vocabulary and their relevance may not be immediately obvious from the NIV translation. (J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 12).
Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries publishers of Motyer’s second commentary on Isaiah is based upon the NIV, so of course comments on differences would be expected.
In the Old Testament in particular no single English translation is adequate to reflect the original text. The version on which this commentary is based is the New International Version, but other translations are referred to as well, and on occasion the author supplies his own. Where necessary, words are transliterated in order to help the reader who is unfamiliar with Hebrew to identify the precise word under discussion. It is assumed throughout that the reader will have ready access to at least one reliable rendering of the Bible in English. (Donald J. Wiseman, “General Preface,” in J. A. Motyer’s, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 7–8).
And although he does offer criticism, he also offers occasional praise.
In 45:8 Isaiah’s Hebrew is not at all easy to translate (why should it be?), but the meaning is plain. NIV handles the Hebrew ‘broadly’ but offers an accurate interpretation. Cf. RV, NKJV, NASB. (Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, (footnote) p. 324).
Who can speak of his descendants?: a very free rendering, meaning that the Servant was cut off in his prime, leaving no family—as (presumably) does ‘Who will declare his generation?’ (NKJV). But better is ‘Who of his generation considered …’ (NIV MG.), (Ibid. 380).
Rob
Perhaps. Perhaps, not. It is used in correspondence with John's use of it in reference to Gordon Fee, and in the references Motyer is expressing dissatisfaction about something.
I generally agree, which is my meaning in "that is, specific translations made in Isaiah." However, I do read his statement in footnote 1 on p. 503 as more general.
Other than what you quote that his commentary is based on the Hebrew text of Isaiah (rather than the NIV directly), I am not aware of any further explanation about his use of the NIV. Perhaps he prefers it. Are you aware of any place he says this specifically? I am not convinced it is a personal decision rather than a publisher's decision, but am open to evidence to the contrary. I do not have or have access to the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series, but am assuming that the two commentaries by Motyer are not independent and unrelated works. Both are by the same publisher, and in the preface to the book I have he comments that he was invited "over thirty years since" to contribute Isaiah to the Tyndale commentaries.
Anyone who has read commentaries knew what he meant. That is how most commentators interact with translations. I have never seen a commentary level a blanket charge of being full of mistakes. That being said, I have seen authors correct the NIV84 more than other translations. Some of this is because the NIV84 is widely used and therefore the authors interact with it more. It is also do to several renderings with the NIV84 that could have been better. Such as all the times it says "faith" in the Gospel of John.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
New Bible Commentary uses the NIV (Motyer was among many editors)
In two NT commentaries of Motyer’s that I have (Philippians and James in The Bible Speaks Today …which use the RSV as its base text), he is quite congenial to the NIV.
Rob
In two NT commentaries of Motyer’s that I have (Philippians and James in The Bible Speaks Today …which use the RSV as its base text), he is quite congenial to the NIV.
James 1:4 “Note that this verse begins with and, the word is of some importance. (NIV seeks to achieve the right stress by omitting ‘and’ and introducing the thought of ‘must’.)
J. A. Motyer, The Message of James: The Tests of Faith, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 32.
J. A. Motyer, The Message of James: The Tests of Faith, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 32.
James 1:8 “Comparison of English translations will show that there is some uncertainty as to how verse 8 ought to be punctuated. RSV represents one possibility; NIV (cf. RV) represents another: ‘That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man …’ Not a great deal is at stake either way,…” ibid, p. 40.
“…these together are to be recognized as God-breathed(footnote – ‘NIV offers this accurate translation of 2 Tim. 3:16’) scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). ibid, 63.
From a footnote of James 2:1-7 “RSV is a literal translation, hold the faith of; NIV, though paraphrastic, catches the heart of the matter, ‘believers in’. The verb ‘to have/hold’ is frequently used along with ‘faith’ in the sense ‘to have and exercise faith’ (e.g. Mt. 17:20; 1 Tim. 1:19; etc.). The noun ‘faith’ is also frequently used with a following genitive case, ‘faith of’, meaning ‘faith in’ (e.g. Mk. 11:22; Rom. 3:22, 26; Eph. 3:12; etc.). Peter Davids is mistaken in saying that ‘the genitive qualifier of pistin (faith) is quite unusual’. R. J. Knowling rightly opens the expression out as ‘the faith which has our Lord for its object’. Eph. 3:12 and many other places show that the definite article ‘the faith’ cannot automatically be taken to imply ‘credal faith’, i.e. ‘the faith which we hold about our Lord Jesus Christ’. We must understand the words ‘the faith’ in context and here in James the reference has to be to personal trust in Christ.”
James 2:3 footnote – “In v. 3 RSV ‘Have a seat here, please’ and NIV ‘Here’s a good seat for you’ represent the two usually proposed understandings of James’ Greek, ‘Do sit here well’. J. H. Ropes would contest an NIV-type rendering, urging some ‘polite idiom’ in the sense of ‘please’. J. B. Phillips gets the best of both worlds: ‘Please sit here—it’s an excellent seat.’”
James 2:13 “RSV tries to help James by smoothing over the abruptness with which he ends his paragraph. We read, yet mercy triumphs over judgment. There is no yet in James’ Greek. NIV makes the words an independent exclamation, and this is correct.” ibid, 103.
I believe his comments in commentaries represent individual translational choices rather than a general feeling of discontent with the version - he comments widely, but most often on the NIV .
Rob
I think you are over playing his "complaints".
Again, these are points of translational disagreement rather than a condemnation of the version.
Gordon Fee uses the NIV in all of his commentaries, even going as far as obtaining an advanced copy by permission in his commentary on Revelation in the New Covenant Commentary Series.
Here are a few that I have:
I express my appreciation here to the Zondervan Corporation for allowing me to use the NIV and to make my own “corrections” at several places where I personally found the NIV not fully adequate.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), xii.
We have tried to write in such a way that you will be able to follow what is said, no matter which English translation you are using, provided it is a contemporary one (see ch. 2 of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth). For the New Testament, Professor Fee regularly had Today’s New International Version (TNIV) in front of him as he wrote; for the Old Testament, the New International Version (1984 edition) was used. Typically, when Bible verses are cited in this book, they are taken either from the NIV or from the New Testament edition of the TNIV.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 11–12.
3.3. Read the paragraph through in several translations
Secure at least seven different translations (preferably the KJV, NASB, NRSV, TNIV, GNB, REB, NJB (or NAB) [although any number of other modern translations will serve as well in place of the final three; see the bibliography in IV.3 for these choices]). You may wish to photocopy the appropriate paragraph from each of the translations, so that you can freely mark them up if you choose to do so.
Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 12.
Finally, I should note that the biblical text used throughout is the (yet to be published) 2011 edition of the NIV, which has been used by permission of the Committee on Bible Translation who are responsible for the translation (to which I have access before publication as a member of the translation committee) and of the Zondervan Corporation who will publish it.
Gordon D. Fee, Revelation, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), x.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), xii.
We have tried to write in such a way that you will be able to follow what is said, no matter which English translation you are using, provided it is a contemporary one (see ch. 2 of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth). For the New Testament, Professor Fee regularly had Today’s New International Version (TNIV) in front of him as he wrote; for the Old Testament, the New International Version (1984 edition) was used. Typically, when Bible verses are cited in this book, they are taken either from the NIV or from the New Testament edition of the TNIV.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 11–12.
3.3. Read the paragraph through in several translations
Secure at least seven different translations (preferably the KJV, NASB, NRSV, TNIV, GNB, REB, NJB (or NAB) [although any number of other modern translations will serve as well in place of the final three; see the bibliography in IV.3 for these choices]). You may wish to photocopy the appropriate paragraph from each of the translations, so that you can freely mark them up if you choose to do so.
Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 12.
Finally, I should note that the biblical text used throughout is the (yet to be published) 2011 edition of the NIV, which has been used by permission of the Committee on Bible Translation who are responsible for the translation (to which I have access before publication as a member of the translation committee) and of the Zondervan Corporation who will publish it.
Gordon D. Fee, Revelation, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), x.
Rob
PS, hope you're feeling better!
Rob, I think you are overplaying your complaints about “complaints.”
Certainly, is that not what we have been talking about all along?