Flaws within the NIV translation?

[Jig]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I tried to do some of my own research on Google, but the search is flooded with heavily bias pro-KJV-only responses.

 

[calluna]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I tried to do some of my own research on Google, but the search is flooded with heavily bias pro-KJV-only responses.

That's the point about the NIV, though. It's the version that got the KJVO movement on the road. It mattered not that the RSV was not based on the Majority NT. The TEV (now GNB) and other new translations similarly passed their notice. It was only when the punchy, mostly accurate, best-selling NIV, used by the scholarly as well as the not-so-scholarly, arrived, that there was reaction, an awakening, a shout of alarm and discomfort. KJVOers regularly contrast their own choice against the NIV, failing to mention that every other modern version (save the NKJV, and not always that), gives a similar rendition. The NIV is the bête noire of those loud and ludicrous KJVOers, and deserves special attention for that reason only. But it is certainly not perfect, and, I expect, readers here will let us know why.

 

[ebia]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I tried to do some of my own research on Google, but the search is flooded with heavily bias pro-KJV-only responses.

It's precisely because translation isn't clear-cut that the NIV has some dubious and/or contraversial translations. Exactly what they are will always be, to some extent, a matter of opinion - a definitive list is never possible. All translations have some, the NIV perhaps more than most modern translations, but what serious scholar would invest the effort in trying to list them all? The kinds of people who would do that are those with an obsession like the KJ only crowd.

The NIV is not a crash-hot translation, especially when it comes to Paul, but it was never really designed to be a study bible anyway. For that you want something a bit more literally precise like something from the RSV/NRSV/ESV family.

 

[calluna]

It's precisely because translation isn't clear-cut that the NIV has some dubious and/or contraversial translations. Exactly what they are will always be, to some extent, a matter of opinion - a definitive list is never possible. All translations have some, the NIV perhaps more than most modern translations, but what serious scholar would invest the effort in trying to list them all? The kinds of people who would do that are those with an obsession like the KJ only crowd.

The NIV is not a crash-hot translation, especially when it comes to Paul, but it was never really designed to be a study bible anyway. For that you want something a bit more literally precise like something from the RSV/NRSV/ESV family.

I can never understand what a study Bible translation is. If one wants to study, one uses original languages. If one wants to self-edify or communicate in a vernacular, one uses a translation, and much the best way to do that is to use one that utilises dynamic equivalence.

I don't agree that the NIV is worse than average as far as distortions are concerned. Some of the latest offerings are downright appalling. One can measure heresy on a time-scale; as English translations became more accessible and up-to-date, they became more heretical. It's one of Satan's nasty perverted characteristics that he never gives anything away (the GNB is the best compromise, imv- he slipped up a bit there). The NIV's rendition is amusing, in a strange sort of way, because its general accuracy only serves to emphasise the deliberately contrived nature of the relatively few errors that it does make.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I've had formal training in Greek and Hebrew. I also have spent time reading through most of the modern English translations.

Each English translation has their own strengths and weaknesses. But what is meant by strengths and weaknesses?

Using archery as an analogy: assuming we have several expert teams of archers, are we questioning whether they even hit the target? Or are we trying to determine just how accurate they were in hitting the target?

With experts, its not a matter of hitting the target, its a matter of accuracy. Those close to the bull's eye are accurate Those closer to the bull's eye are more accurate.

The same is true with the English translations. There are expert teams of translators, and so we are talking about accuracy rather than hit/miss or right/wrong.

One example where I think the NIV wasn't as accurate as other translations is in Ecclesiastes. A key term repeated throughout the book is introduced in 1:2. The original Hebrew word carries the idea of "nothingness" or "emptiness." The NIV and NLT used the English term "meaningless." The CJB used "pointless." The traditional word used by most English translations has been "vanity." The NET, HCSB and TNK used "futile." In short, I think the more accurate English word to describe it is "futile."

So is "meaningless" and "pointless" wrong or misleading? I don't think so. Is "Vanity" a completely outdated word? I don't think so, even if its not as common as before. Is there a more accurate word than "futile?" Perhaps, I'm open to any suggestions, but it seems the best one for now.

The bottom line is: Can I trust the modern English translations for representing what the originals have to say? Yes. My answer is that you can trust the modern English translations. I do.


LDG

 

[SummaScriptura]

I used the NIV in 1979 and 1980. When I started noticing theological ideas being injected via paraphrases, I was converted to the NASB.

One that I still remember... Paul's usage of the term "the flesh" when discussing sin; the NIV substitutes (at least it did then) the term "sinful nature".

I'll do my own interpretation, thank you!

 

[calluna]

I used the NIV in 1979 and 1980. When I started noticing theological ideas being injected via paraphrases, I was converted to the NASB.

One that I still remember... Paul's usage of the term "the flesh" when discussing sin; the NIV substitutes (at least it did then) the term "sinful nature".

I'll do my own interpretation, thank you!

'For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work.' Ro 7:5 NASB

The phrase 'in the flesh' means 'in bodily life, alive: incarnate' (Chambers Dict.). If readers are not to understand that the writer was deceased, writing to the deceased, how is this verse to be interpreted?

 

[cyberlizard]

a boring mis-translation (depending on your point of view) can be found in the NIV at Acts 2v42, where the text says about the believers, .... to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

whereas the Greek shows the link between the early faith and the temple community. It actually says 'the prayers' with both the definite article and prayers in the plural. This is a carry over from Daniels prayer structure of tamid prayers and minchah inclusion.


Steve

p.s. only someone with messianic tendencies would be bothered about this, but it is quite a poor translation here, and the worst thing is that it is not mentioned in the footnotes.

 

[Nazaroo]

Can anyone list the places where the NIV translation fails and renders a false, wrong, misleading, or improper interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew texts?

I tried to do some of my own research on Google, but the search is flooded with heavily bias pro-KJV-only responses.

Seems clear from your post that you are not interested in issues surrounding the textual variants (e.g. Traditional text versus Critical texts).

If you are serious about actual detailed translational examples, start with page 5 of this thread here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2408015&page=5

Begin around message #46 (the Greek lessons) and follow through to about message #50 (Conditional Sentences).

Here you will see that there are quite a lot of 'false' translations mostly circling around conditional statements and clauses. It may be heavy going at first, especially since no modern Greek grammars cover this kind of material. Usually they steer the reader away with poor introductions to conditional sentences, and tend to pull the 'status quo' by supporting popular renderings.

Only at an advanced level will you be introduced to the doctrinal controversies (which are many and important) caused by sloppily translating or misinterpreting conditionals.

The most common error in translating a conditional is actually in removing the conditional aspect and turning the sentence into a flat statement, which in turn will be interpreted as a statement of fact, rather than a hypothetical proposition (its usual original meaning and intent).


P.S.: The most important doctrinal errors in the NIV are not usually peculiar to it, but are shared by nearly all English translations, ancient or modern. These errors usually lead to doctrinal contradictions where none exist in the Greek.
This in turn leads to confusion over doctrines that should be straightforward and easy to understand.
(See the examples in the thread)

PM me if you need help.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[ebia]

I can never understand what a study Bible translation is. If one wants to study, one uses original languages.

The vast majority of Christians don't have access to the original languages, and if they do only have a very limited understanding of them. There's clearly a place for more precise translatins such as RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NAB for most people to study scripture as well as for dynamic equivalence and paraphrases for soaking oneself in scripture. Personally I don't like the NIV much as a dynamic equivalence bible though - it's very poor at translating Paul's ideas (putting a particular reading of them back into them, rather than letting themselves speak for themselves as much as possible) and I don't much like its literary style (but that's a subjective thing).

 

[calluna]

The vast majority of Christians don't have access to the original languages.

Some Christians don't have access even to a Bible, and they usually put the people who read translated Bibles to shame.

 

[Chaplain David]

The vast majority of Christians don't have access to the original languages.

And yet we believe...

The NIV's great! Use it all the time. Especially like the NASB. And then there's the King Jimmy, then the New King Jimmy which has more capitalization of appropriate words, and there's the New Living Bible, and my George Llamsa translation... There are many more.

I speak several languages. Wish Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac were among them. God bless.

 

[Chaplain David]

Some Christians don't have access even to a Bible, and they usually put the people who read translated Bibles to shame.

Well I think we aught to get them one.

 

[calluna]

Well I think we aught to get them one.

Some of us have been attempting to improve supplies for decades now.

 

[Jig]

Seems clear from your post that you are not interested in issues surrounding the textual variants (e.g. Traditional text versus Critical texts).

If you are serious about actual detailed translational examples, start with page 5 of this thread here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2408015&page=5

Begin around message #46 (the Greek lessons) and follow through to about message #50 (Conditional Sentences).

Here you will see that there are quite a lot of 'false' translations mostly circling around conditional statements and clauses. It may be heavy going at first, especially since no modern Greek grammars cover this kind of material. Usually they steer the reader away with poor introductions to conditional sentences, and tend to pull the 'status quo' by supporting popular renderings.

Only at an advanced level will you be introduced to the doctrinal controversies (which are many and important) caused by sloppily translating or misinterpreting conditionals.

The most common error in translating a conditional is actually in removing the conditional aspect and turning the sentence into a flat statement, which in turn will be interpreted as a statement of fact, rather than a hypothetical proposition (its usual original meaning and intent).


P.S.: The most important doctrinal errors in the NIV are not usually peculiar to it, but are shared by nearly all English translations, ancient or modern. These errors usually lead to doctrinal contradictions where none exist in the Greek.
This in turn leads to confusion over doctrines that should be straightforward and easy to understand.
(See the examples in the thread)

PM me if you need help.

Peace,
Nazaroo

And what translation do you use?

 

[Nazaroo]

And what translation do you use?

The short answer is I don't like to rely upon any translation, except for confirmation of historical sense etc. I prefer the original languages, which is why I spent 30 years learning them.

For those struggling to acquire Hebrew or Greek, I strongly recommend using several translations in parallel.

The best overall translation, which I strongly recommend, is Young's Literal translation. Begin there.

If there is any difficulty, move to the KJV or NKJV. If you have trouble with archaic English (many do), study some simple word lists, to prevent you being misled, such as are posted in the large thread here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2457973&highlight=King+James+Word+list



I would avoid early attempts at 'improvement' of the English Bible, such as the notorious "Revised Version" of 1882 etc. These have the dubious distinction of being based on a mutilated critical text, an awful rendering into English, and a poor grasp of the original languages.

If you are already well versed in the textual problems of the New Testament, then a translation like the NIV can be quite useful, provided you keep in mind it has been translated from a bastardized 'critical text' similar to similar to Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, and the UBS Greek text.

As a student of textual criticism for many years, I have little faith in the skeptical and shoddy work of modern academics.

The traditional text is just as good or better than any 'edited' text that mediocre 'scholars' have come up with.

A good example of bad textual criticism is the infamous misjudgement concerning John 8:1-11 by modern critics. For a very detailed view of the REAL evidence concerning its authenticity, I recommend starting with our site dedicated to this subject, here:

http://adultera.awardspace.com

I have no hesitation in quoting almost any version that shows clarity for the verse(s) concerned. But when I know there is a problem in the underlying Greek or Hebrew, I prefer to translate it myself.

Modern translations should not be completely written off, just because they make a few serious errors, like deleting verses, or offering biased interpretations for doctrinal purposes.

But when using any translation, take the time to find out WHO did it, and what theological or denominational bias they struggled under.

Get to know your versions, and memorize the verses and versions you have confirmed are adequate and effective.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[calluna]

memorize

= inure.

 

[Radagast]

The vast majority of Christians don't have access to the original languages, and if they do only have a very limited understanding of them. There's clearly a place for more precise translatins such as RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NAB for most people to study scripture as well as for dynamic equivalence and paraphrases for soaking oneself in scripture. Personally I don't like the NIV much as a dynamic equivalence bible though - it's very poor at translating Paul's ideas (putting a particular reading of them back into them, rather than letting themselves speak for themselves as much as possible) and I don't much like its literary style (but that's a subjective thing).

Personally I read the Greek together with the NIV (which I'm quite happy with, because I think it translates the Greek very well). If you're unhappy with the NIV, I would think the ESV would be your best bet (the ESV is more of a "word for word" translation).

 

[ebia]

Personally I read the Greek together with the NIV (which I'm quite happy with, because I think it translates the Greek very well). If you're unhappy with the NIV, I would think the ESV would be your best bet (the ESV is more of a "word for word" translation).

I do use the ESV for study mostly (NRSV sometimes) - and New Jerusalem for more devotional reading.

But this has drifted well away from the question in the OP.

 

[Radagast]

If you are already well versed in the textual problems of the New Testament, then a translation like the NIV can be quite useful, provided you keep in mind it has been translated from a bastardized 'critical text' similar to similar to Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, and the UBS Greek text.

I don't think your criticisms of the generally accepted modern Greek text are justified. And your posted views on Greek grammar seem out of step with what's in my textbooks.