mightychurch.com

I was wondering if there has been much discussion on these forums about the new edition of the NIV or if anyone knows of some helpful blogs that might provide some helpful guidance for a pleb like me?

Hi Lee,

I only recently became aware of this new edition which you can peruse online at :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=NIV

If you want to see some reviews,  perhaps try these links :

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html
( also check out all the comments below the article )

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2010/11/the-niv-2011-and-inclusive-language.html

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/11/15/niv2011-changes/

http://trevinwax.com/2010/11/16/the-niv-2011-forces-a-choice/

http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2010/11/23/niv-2011-rejected-by-the-council-of-biblical-manhood-womanhood-cbmw/

As for me and my household, we’ll be sticking to the 1984 NIV Study Bible edition !

http://betterbibles.com/?s=niv&searchsubmit=Find
There’s a link to the posts mentioning the NIV at the Better Bible Blogs (which I’m a contributor of).

In general, it’s a great update in the NIV family. If you weren’t too fond of the other NIVs then I doubt the revision will be super appealing to you either. Thankfully there hasn’t been as much of a smear campaign as there was for the TNIV.

It has some word substitutions which I find a bit jarring.
eg:

Luke 2:11 (New International Version, ©2011)
11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

Instead of ‘Christ the Lord’.
 
I wonder if NIV has jumped the shark.  I’ve been softly migrating to ESV.

I find the ESV unstickable. It just doesn’t roll off the tongue… so I’m into the TNIV these days.

Hi again Lee, 

The March edition of “Southern Cross” ( distributed this coming Sunday ) will have an extensive review of NIV 2011 by Dominic Steele. ( No web link yet. )

If you don’t have access to grabbing a copy - and no link becomes available to the story - just message me your postal address, and I will send you a copy of the article. Cheers.

Ros, why would you prefer “Christ the Lord”? I think for most people “Christ” is only Jesus’ surname, whereas they have at least some idea of what “Messiah” really means.

I think for most people “Christ” is only Jesus’ surname, whereas they have at least some idea of what “Messiah” really means.

 
I have to admit I’m not up with what most people know. Perhaps ‘messiah’ has come into the vernacular in respect of expectations of certain political leaders?   
 
As far as I understand, Christ and Messiah mean the same thing.

To me, ‘Messiah’ has Old Testament prophecy connotations (which I wouldn’t have expected most people to know) and ‘Christ’ has Son of God connotations.
 
When I read a highly familiar passage and see a change in a really important word, I think - ‘Why did they do that?’
       
The 1984 NIV had achieved a popular stature of being ‘THE’ Bible.  (Although I know people who swear by the NLT, which makes me cringe.)  With recent changes, TNIV and now 2011, that status is no longer certain, and perhaps there may be greater plurality of versions.  OTOH maybe ‘everyone’ will just accept the new one.  Often (for example) in Bible Studies there is a kind of social pressure to all have the same version. 

For established Christians, all kinds of personal preferences come into play.  For example, Dave likes the flow of TNIV; I like the greater precision of ESV.

Heh, each to their own, but I don’t see anything in the ESV that I could call more precise than other translations. I don’t see the point of the ESV actually, all it seems to be is a more evangelical update of the RSV. Their advertising campaign is all about how evangelical “authorities” use it, and so should you.

I got myself an NLT a few months ago and am loving it. Aside from the Message and the CEV (neither of which are mainstream general-purpose translations) it feels like the translation with the least Biblish.

I think many people would think that “messiah” carries the meaning of being a savior, and perhaps a martyr (think of messiah complex). While that’s only part of the Biblical concept, I doubt the average aussie would connect those meanings to the word “christ”. I guess field testing would help here!

Heh, each to their own, but I don’t see anything in the ESV that I could call more precise than other translations.

Well, you’re the language expert!  What criteria do you use?  Whenever I compare with a Greek interlinear (I don’t know Greek, but it gives me some idea) the ESV seems pretty close. 
 

I got myself an NLT a few months ago and am loving it. Aside from the Message and the CEV (neither of which are mainstream general-purpose translations) it feels like the translation with the least Biblish.

Actually, I’ve heard NLT is very good and useful for evangelism purposes and for use with new Christians.  (I’m a dinosaur and don’t mind Biblish.)

Well I quite like both the Living Translation (NLT now) and the 1984 NIV edition.  We use the 1984 NIV at our church and have always done so to my memory.

A good friend of mine is a big fan of the NLT and I don’t mind what I’ve seen. We use the CEV for all our kids stuff and it is ok most of the time (and great some times) but at other times, it can be atrocious.

Ros, here’s a blog post I wrote earlier this year about the layers of language: http://betterbibles.com/2011/01/07/layers-of-language-and-translation/

Translations like the ESV generally attempt to convey the morphology and syntax of the source into the target language - hence why it seems so close to the Greek. But this is usually at the expense of conveying the semantics and pragmatics of the source. While there is some value in conveying the morphosyntax for study tools (for those who haven’t yet learnt Greek/Hebrew themselves) I don’t think it has any value for a general-purpose/reading-devotionally/reading-out-aloud-in-church/preaching-from translation. Furthermore, because it actually hinders the semantics, focusing on the morphosyntax actually makes such a translation worse for those functions.

Dannii, thanks for your response, that’s interesting and informative and helpful.
 
My non-expert observation of versions like the NLT is they tend to furnish an interpretation, whereas ESV etc. leave more possibilities open for the reader to judge for themselves the deeper layers of meaning.
 
Such interpretation may well be coloured by the theology of the translator.  In the case of ‘The Message’, for example, I get the feeling it is actually biased towards a theologically liberal point of view.
 
Nonetheless, I take your point that there is a lot more to a good translation than morpho-syntactical correspondence.

People often say that a meaning-based translation requires more interpretation than a morphosyntax-based translation, but I don’t think that’s true. Sure, some translations might be tainted with excessive translation, but I don’t think it’s dependent on any translation philosophy. All translation requires interpretation - to understand the source text and decide how to best convey it into the target language. The issue is how you interpret the source text. A translation like the ESV might base its interpretation largely on dictionary definitions etc, because it values the principle of concordance - translating the same source word with the same target word. Idioms are likely to be translated word for word rather than interpreting the meaning of the whole phrase and translating that, like non-morphosyntax-based translations can.

But if we know a lot about the language usually there’s no problem. The real difference is when a passage is obscure. So do you translate the syntax of an obscure passage almost certainly getting the meaning wrong, or do you make your best effort to translate your interpretation of the meaning of the source? Leaving it up the reader to judge for themself is a good sentiment, but humanly speaking they’re not likely to get the right meaning from a poorly translated passage in the first place - if the reader was that brilliant at understanding Biblical culture etc they’d be a translation consultant! Of course we can’t ignore the Holy Spirit who helps us understand - but that’s no excuse for not attempting to understand the meaning of the source text as well as you can.

Hmm, what in The Message makes you think it has a liberal point of view? I’ve read it quite a bit and haven’t ever picked that up, but you could be right. I think that The Message is an attempt to convey the translator’s interpretation of the intention behind each passage, even at the expense of the individual meaning of a sentence (so it prioritises pragmatics over semantics) while also being written in highly idiomatic 90’s American English. It’s an interesting experiment, but not something for a general purpose translation.

Hmm, what in The Message makes you think it has a liberal point of view?

 
Just the vibe, I think.  I haven’t used it much, but occasionally I’ve come across an expression that’s made me think ‘hm’.  I was in a church that became increasingly liberal over a period of years, and it seems a similar vibe.  I could be completely wrong! 
 
When new forms are particularly unfamiliar, they are easily used as Trojan Horses for false teaching.

I once used the NIV, it was the bible of my church. Our pastor decided about 10 or so years ago that the ESV was a better version for bible study etc, because it was a more precise translation.

The link Translation Comparison Chart shows graphically the range of translations and where they fall in a “word for word” end of the chart, or the “food for thought” end of the spectrum. The ESV falls at the right side of the word for word chart, and the NIV is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, according to this source.

All I know is that when I go to bible study with several people, they all seem to have a different version of the Bible, not the ESV official one. It does make it difficult to follow what is being read at times, and I often wonder why different people like their version over the ESV. Maybe it is for sentimental reasons.

This link - New NIV explains what the new NIV is all about.

The ESV has been criticised, and this wikipedia link speaks : ESV - Criticism and controversy

A little bit from this link:

There have been attempts to formulate lists of translation issues in the ESV. Bible translator and linguist Wayne Leman has compiled a list of translation problems in the ESV. Meanwhile, at the 2008 gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mark L. Strauss presented a paper entitled “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version” in which he detailed the most common translation errors (in his view) of the ESV. He states in the opening,

I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB; NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”

William D. Mounce, the New Testament Editor of the ESV, responded briefly to Strauss on the Koinonia blog owned by Zondervan:

While the content of the paper was helpful, I am afraid that it only increased the gap between the two “sides” of the debate. There has been a lot of hurt and damage done toward people on both sides of this debate (e.g., someone shot a bullet through a TNIV and mailed it to the publisher), and I got the feeling that Mark was getting tired of being attacked. I would be tired if I were in his shoes. He kept saying that the ESV has “missed” or “not considered” certain translational issues. While I am sure they were not intentional, these are emotionally charged words that do not help in the debate. They are in essence ad hominem arguments focusing on our competence (or perceived lack thereof) and not on the facts. He was not in the translation meetings and does not know if we in fact did miss or did not consider these issues. Time and time again Mark said that if we made a change, then we would have gotten it “right.” This, of course, is not a helpful way to argue because it implies there is only one “right” way to translate a verse. His solution appeared to be that we should adopt a more dynamic view of translation, and then we would have gotten it right. The solution to this debate is to recognize that there are different translation philosophies, different goals and means by which to reach those goals, and the goal of the translator is to be consistent in achieving those goals. In all but one of his examples, our translation was the one required by our translation philosophy.

And there are always the KJV people who point many reasons why their version is much better than other versions: comparing KJV against all comers

I find no difficulty with the ESV, although some of the NIV sections were very poetic and fluent to read.

In the latest Koorong Catalogue ( “March New Releases” ), there are Bible bargains aplenty listed on pages 46-48. ( You can read it online at :  http://www.koorong.com/catalogues/  )

This gives readers the opportunity to buy ( 30% discounted ) translations such as ‘TNIV’ Hardback ($4.17) and ‘NIV LARGE PRINT Study Resources Bible’ Hardback ($11.87). ( see page 48 )

You can also get “NLT Worldwide Edition Bible” Hardback for $5.95 and even the “ESV Reference Bible : Anglicised” Hardback for $14.95. (see page 47 )

I bring these specials to your attention in case you wish to grab a copy of these Bible translations at a low price ( available until 2 April ). Happy shopping !

So anyone who loves the 84NIV or TNIV can stock up on a lifetime’s supply (especially the large print) before they disappear!
 

The March edition of “Southern Cross” ( distributed this coming Sunday ) will have an extensive review of NIV 2011 by Dominic Steele. ( No web link yet. )

 
Dominic Steele didn’t seem to review the NIV 2011 at all, but recommended everyone have a good think and discuss before deciding whether to adopt it or take another option. 
He favors the Holman, ‘it reads better than the ESV and is more accurate than the NIV’ - in his opinion.  ‘When a literal translation is readable, that’s what the Homan does.  When clarity and readability demand something more idiomatic, it takes that approach…’.  ‘...for some time I’ve been thinking the Holman might be the 25-year translation.’

This Christian Post article from yesterday :

Sun, Mar. 13 2011 1     New NIV Bible to Debut amid Ongoing Concern
By Katherine T. Phan       Christian Post Reporter
Say good-bye to the NIV Bible as we know it and say hello to the updated, gender-inclusive NIV Bible which debuts in stores this month.

Mega-publisher Zondervan printed 1.9 million copies of the updated NIV Bible in this first run, up from the original 1.4 million.

“This laydown of the NIV update is bigger than we imagined,” said Chip Brown, senior vice president of Bibles for Zondervan…......

link

Related articles :

New NIV Bible Still Draws Criticisms Over Gender-Related Passages : link

Today’s NIV Bible Barred from LifeWay Christian Bookstores : link

Bible Gateway now has a ‘translation forum’ - where you can find the case for certain new NIV translations.
 
http://www.biblegateway.com/perspectives-in-translation/
 
eg:
 

5.) Philippians 4:13

1984 NIV: “I can do everything through him who gives me strength.”

2010 NIV: “I can do all this through him who gives me strength.”

Here we have one of the most popular and frequently memorized verses in the entire Bible. According to data compiled by Bible Gateway, this is the number four most-read Bible verse. It’s easy to memorize and packs a punch. But the 2010 translation helps us to understand the apostle Paul’s intent more clearly by encouraging us to examine the context of his remark. God granted him contentment in all circumstances, whether rich or poor, well fed or hungry. Indeed, we know from Philippians 2:7 that the “peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” God does not promise to protect believers from all hardship. But he does promise to preserve us in it.

 
It’s also worth checking out the Committee on Bible Translation website:
http://www.niv-cbt.org/

Must be a full moon somewhere. PETA brainiacs have been free ranging on that funny weed again - and combining it with their breakfast time Fruit Loops :

PETA wants Bible translators to consider using more animal friendly terms in the Bible

PETA: Don’t call animals ‘it’ in the Bible

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor   March 23, 2011

PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is calling for a more animal-friendly update to the Bible.

The group is asking translators of the New International Version (NIV) to remove what it calls “speciesist” language and refer to animals as “he” or “she” instead of “it.”

The NIV is a popular translation of the Christian Bible. An updated translation was released this month. The translators said 95% of the 1984 translation remains the same. But the committee of scholars made a move to be more gender-inclusive in their translation into English from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. According to the Committee on Bible Translation’s website:

In general, much more often than not ... “People” and “humans” (and “human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women. ... “Ancestors” was regularly preferred to “forefathers” unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.

PETA is hoping the move toward greater gender inclusiveness will continue toward animals as well. “When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area ... it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area,” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vice president for policy, told CNN.

Friedrich, a practicing Roman Catholic, said, “Language matters. Calling an animal ‘it’ denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God.”

“God’s covenant is with humans and animals. God cares about animals,” Friedrich said. “I would think that’s a rather unanimous opinion among biblical scholars today, where that might not have been the case 200 years ago.”

Friedrich, who is also a vegan and suggests the Bible promotes vegetarianism, puts a religious face on PETA’s ethical arguments.

“What happens in slaughterhouses mocks God,” he said. People know intuitively that “animals are ‘who’ not ‘what.’ ... Acknowledging it would better align our practices with our beliefs.”

David Berger, the dean of Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel graduate school of Jewish studies, said making the shift in English PETA is requesting would be difficult given the nature of ancient Hebrew.

“In Hebrew all nouns are gender-specific. So the noun for chair is masculine and the noun for earth is feminine. There’s simply no such thing as a neutral noun,” Berger told CNN. “It’s unusual to have a noun that would indicate the sex of the animal.”

“In Proverbs it says, ‘Look at the ant oh lazy person. See its ways,’ ” Berger said, quoting the English transition from the book of Proverbs. “In Hebrew it’s ‘see her ways.’ That’s because the word for ant in Hebrew happens to be female. It’s not intended to exclude male ants as far as I know. It’s just an accident the Hebrew word happens to be feminine.”

He said that verse and many others are not intended to single out one sex or the other of the animals. “It’s a little bit misleading given the fact in English the gender of the pronoun means something. It refers to the masculinity of the person or the animal that’s being referred to. In Hebrew in most cases its just sort of an accident of the masculine or feminine of the pronoun to which it referred,” Berger said.

David Lyle Jeffrey, a distinguished professor of literature and the humanities at Baylor University, teaches about ancient texts and the Bible’s relationship to literature and the arts.

“I agree with their contention that God cares for all of creation,” Jeffrey said. “It is true that we have a responsibility to reflect that affection.

“In gender-inclusive Bible translation the generic terms for humankind, let’s say, are then replaced with an emphasis on he or she. Instead of the generic he, you say he and she. I don’t quite see how that would work with animals,” Jeffery said.

“Do we need to know the gender of the lion Samson slew? What would it give us there?” he said. “You could try to specify that, but you would be doing so entirely inventively if you did. It’s not in the original language. ... Nothing is made of it in the story.”

Jeffery said he sympathizes and agrees with PETA’s position that God calls for humans to care for animals, but he said, “When you get to the point when you say, ‘Don’t say it, say he or she’ when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed.”

PETA’s Friedrich said his group’s position has been bolstered by the creation care movement, in which many evangelicals are becoming more conscience about the environment.

“The creation care movement is certainly helpful,” he said.

Whether their arguments will be enough to sway the translators is yet to be seen. Friedrich said he has yet to hear back from the Committee on Bible Translation.

‘sauce’

Ugh. Grammatical “gender” or better, noun classes, are usually quite irrelevant for translation. So much ignorance!

Slightly off-tangent but I found this article interesting on the 400th anniversary of the KJV:

http://eternity.biz/news/on_the_birthday_of_the_kjv_why_should_we_care/1105021000/

Not copying the contents here as the formatting is a bit hard to follow.