What about the infamous TNIV change of "Jews" to "Jewish leaders"?
New NIV Available Today at BibleGateway
- Thread starter TomVols
- Start date
- Status
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
A very quick look lends me to tentatively believe that the new NIV is an improvement over the TNIV and the NIV in spots. 1 Tim 3:2 and 3:8 come to mind. The latter is particularly so (ne NIV's "the women" as opposed to "their wives"). On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with 1 Cor 7:2 in the new NIV ("have sexual relations"), or 2 Tim 3:17's "servant of God" vs "man of God." The jury is still out for me. I need to look at it further. I've only scannned about 20-30 passages right now.
Hebrew Student
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey Everyone!
I actually prefer that translation. The Greek term echo can have a sexual connotation to it, both in the LXX as well as the NT. Gordon Fee has pointed out Exodus 2:1, Deuteronomy 28:30, and Isaiah 13:16 in the LXX, as well as Mark 6:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 as examples.
Furthermore, it seems to fit the context better. verses 2-4 seem to all be chiastic in character:
2. ...man...wife...woman...husband.
3. ...husband...wife...wife...husband
4. ...wife...husband...husband...wife
Hence, they are probably a unit. Also the proceeding context is about husbands and wives, and hence, it fits the proceeding topic as well. In fact, the New NIV is not the first translation to translate it this way. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace's main involvement in translation is with the New English Translation availible here. It reads:
The note on that reads:
There is also the problem that Fee points out about echo having to connotation of "to marry." I have confirmed this in tracking the verbs through my reading. The normal term used for marriage is lambano, and usually lying behind it, the Hebrew term laqach. It also doesn't make sense contextually, as, when he gets to the discussion on virgins in verses 25ff, he tells them to remain as they are. Hence, I would say that the New NIV and the NET Bible have actually translated the passage closer to its meaning.
Hence, I am actually happy about that translation.
However, the gender neutral language is not something I am happy about. The only argument I have heard in favor of it is that the generic masculine has fallen out of usage. I have not yet been convinced of that. Not only that, but I have suspected that one of the reasons one could argue for the claim that it has fallen out of usage is because of political correctness, which is something I want to fight against, not submit to.
I will have to check out some of the other passages to see what I think. Anyway, thanks for the link!
God Bless,
Adam
I actually prefer that translation. The Greek term echo can have a sexual connotation to it, both in the LXX as well as the NT. Gordon Fee has pointed out Exodus 2:1, Deuteronomy 28:30, and Isaiah 13:16 in the LXX, as well as Mark 6:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 as examples.
Furthermore, it seems to fit the context better. verses 2-4 seem to all be chiastic in character:
2. ...man...wife...woman...husband.
3. ...husband...wife...wife...husband
4. ...wife...husband...husband...wife
Hence, they are probably a unit. Also the proceeding context is about husbands and wives, and hence, it fits the proceeding topic as well. In fact, the New NIV is not the first translation to translate it this way. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace's main involvement in translation is with the New English Translation availible here. It reads:
The note on that reads:
There is also the problem that Fee points out about echo having to connotation of "to marry." I have confirmed this in tracking the verbs through my reading. The normal term used for marriage is lambano, and usually lying behind it, the Hebrew term laqach. It also doesn't make sense contextually, as, when he gets to the discussion on virgins in verses 25ff, he tells them to remain as they are. Hence, I would say that the New NIV and the NET Bible have actually translated the passage closer to its meaning.
Hence, I am actually happy about that translation.
However, the gender neutral language is not something I am happy about. The only argument I have heard in favor of it is that the generic masculine has fallen out of usage. I have not yet been convinced of that. Not only that, but I have suspected that one of the reasons one could argue for the claim that it has fallen out of usage is because of political correctness, which is something I want to fight against, not submit to.
I will have to check out some of the other passages to see what I think. Anyway, thanks for the link!
God Bless,
Adam
Bethel
Puritan Board Freshman
I found this New NIV comparison chart on Challies.com: NIV2011/NIV2010 Changes
I was surprised to see that over 30% of the New NIV is the same as the TNIV; didn't they get the message that no one liked the TNIV?
Blessings,
I was surprised to see that over 30% of the New NIV is the same as the TNIV; didn't they get the message that no one liked the TNIV?
Blessings,
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
For years I've used the 1984 NIV almost exclusively when I teach kids. The reason is because (1) kids can generally follow and understand it even if they're completely unfamiliar with the Bible and (2) it does not give in to liberal renderings of the text. I've not found any other translation that fits both criteria. Now I wonder if the new NIV will fail my test as well.
Maybe I ought to buy up a cartload of the 1984 Bibles while they're still available for use in class over the next 20 years or so.
Maybe I ought to buy up a cartload of the 1984 Bibles while they're still available for use in class over the next 20 years or so.
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
When the new NIVs come out in March you can have my '84 copy.
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
People that don't like J MacArthur....
Personally, I am really excited for the new NIV to come out.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't need the new NIV. We have gas logs in the fireplace. But I can understand how some people could be interested with winter coming on.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Comparisons of changes:
NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV
NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
On face value, with so many unreached in the English-speaking world, I'm deeply troubled by the idea of burning good Bibles and the subsequent agreement shown by at least three folks. However, I'm going to give lattitude in that I pray it was meant in jest.
Lawrence, thank you for your helpful comparison.
Someone mentioned the HCSB. With the new revision, this could grow on me. But far too many see it as the "Southern Baptist Bible" so I don't know if it will ever gain a foothold
Lawrence, thank you for your helpful comparison.
Someone mentioned the HCSB. With the new revision, this could grow on me. But far too many see it as the "Southern Baptist Bible" so I don't know if it will ever gain a foothold
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
Speaking of "have sexual relations" vs "have" in 1 Cor 7:2, Hebrew Student wrote:
That said, the NIV and NET are not felled by this verse rendering at all.
Right on all points grammatically. I see how one can arrive at that translation. However, "have" lets the reader interpret the extent and I generally believe that's safer ground, especially in light of Paul's 1 Cor usage of the word in the normal "possess" connotation and not euphemistically. Further, it would seem unnecessarily redundant to say in verse 2 what is essentially emphasized in verse 3, save for Paul using an emphatic (which is possible). Also, if verse one and seven "sandwiches" the pericope, and the idea of having a spouse as not being in opposition to a mythic Corinthian ideal is better served with "have" in verse 2 than the NET and NIV interpretative translation. Since contextually speaking both translations are plausible, I like sticking with the most literal. To essentially say "There's so much sin. What you need to do is have sex with your spouse" is justifiable, but the more natural broad-context would argue for Paul essentially saying "since there is so much sexual sin, have a spouse and don't get hung up on singleness."
That said, the NIV and NET are not felled by this verse rendering at all.
Hebrew Student
Puritan Board Freshman
TomVols,
Thank you for your comments.
Actually, he does use it in 1 Corinthians 5:1 as a euphomism for marital relations. Also, I would say that the clearly sexual context would imply that we should go that direction, as well as the statement in the following verse that states nearly the same thing.
Actually, I think one could see a progression of thought from verse 2 to verse 3. In verse 3, Paul uses the Greek term opheile to refer to marital relations. This is the normal Greek word for "debt," thus calling marital relations a debt which is owed. Paul then says, as a result of this debt, that the the couple does not have authority over their own bodies. In other words, verse 2 gives the command, and verses 3-4 expound on that command. Verse 3 would give the reason, namely, that it is a marital debt, and verse 4 would then give the consequence to that debt, namely, that each part of the couple does not have authority over their own bodies.
Also, I think one could argue that verse 2 would seem out of place, as the Corinthian saying would be given in verse 1, Paul would then give a command to marry because of sexual immorality in verse 2, and then never talk about it again. That would seem to break up verses 1-2 from the rest of the discourse.
Also, I am not really convinced that the idea of marrying to avoid immorality is part of Pauline thought. Yes, I am aware of verses 8-9 of this chapter, but it is also likely that Paul is dealing with widowers and widows in that verse, who have had their marital relationship broken up by death in a sinful culture like Corinth. It is difficult to then try to transfer that to a simple unmarried person who is struggling with sexual sin. In fact, as I said, when Paul does address virgins specifically in verses 25ff, I commands them to remain as they are, and not get married! Also, when he specifically addresses the issue of immorality, his command is to "flee" immorality [6:18].
As far as how we handle issues like this in translation, I almost wonder if a margin would be best in this instance. The translator translates it in the way he thinks is best, and then uses a footnote to let his readers know that there is an issue with how to understand the verse. That is what the New NIV does with verse 8. It contains a footnote letting people know that it is possible to understand "unmarried" in that verse as "widowers." I think it might have been good to do that with verse 2 as well, just to let people know that the the word is echo, and to let the reader know why the translated it in the way that they did.
Anyway, as you said, it doesn't really detract from the translation at all. In fact, I have found that, other than having gender neutral language, this translation actually has many translations that I have been arguing for. For example, 'adam is translated as "mankind" in Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 127:5a is translated as a passive, and there is finally a footnote in Malachi 2:15 noting that the first portion of that verse is obscure. So, other than the gender neutral language, I actually like this translation.
God Bless,
Adam
Thank you for your comments.
Actually, he does use it in 1 Corinthians 5:1 as a euphomism for marital relations. Also, I would say that the clearly sexual context would imply that we should go that direction, as well as the statement in the following verse that states nearly the same thing.
Actually, I think one could see a progression of thought from verse 2 to verse 3. In verse 3, Paul uses the Greek term opheile to refer to marital relations. This is the normal Greek word for "debt," thus calling marital relations a debt which is owed. Paul then says, as a result of this debt, that the the couple does not have authority over their own bodies. In other words, verse 2 gives the command, and verses 3-4 expound on that command. Verse 3 would give the reason, namely, that it is a marital debt, and verse 4 would then give the consequence to that debt, namely, that each part of the couple does not have authority over their own bodies.
Also, I think one could argue that verse 2 would seem out of place, as the Corinthian saying would be given in verse 1, Paul would then give a command to marry because of sexual immorality in verse 2, and then never talk about it again. That would seem to break up verses 1-2 from the rest of the discourse.
Also, I am not really convinced that the idea of marrying to avoid immorality is part of Pauline thought. Yes, I am aware of verses 8-9 of this chapter, but it is also likely that Paul is dealing with widowers and widows in that verse, who have had their marital relationship broken up by death in a sinful culture like Corinth. It is difficult to then try to transfer that to a simple unmarried person who is struggling with sexual sin. In fact, as I said, when Paul does address virgins specifically in verses 25ff, I commands them to remain as they are, and not get married! Also, when he specifically addresses the issue of immorality, his command is to "flee" immorality [6:18].
As far as how we handle issues like this in translation, I almost wonder if a margin would be best in this instance. The translator translates it in the way he thinks is best, and then uses a footnote to let his readers know that there is an issue with how to understand the verse. That is what the New NIV does with verse 8. It contains a footnote letting people know that it is possible to understand "unmarried" in that verse as "widowers." I think it might have been good to do that with verse 2 as well, just to let people know that the the word is echo, and to let the reader know why the translated it in the way that they did.
Anyway, as you said, it doesn't really detract from the translation at all. In fact, I have found that, other than having gender neutral language, this translation actually has many translations that I have been arguing for. For example, 'adam is translated as "mankind" in Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 127:5a is translated as a passive, and there is finally a footnote in Malachi 2:15 noting that the first portion of that verse is obscure. So, other than the gender neutral language, I actually like this translation.
God Bless,
Adam
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a good review of the NIV 2011. Basically it's better than the TNIV, but still not to be recommended due to blurring of gender roles in some passages. Anyone else have thoughts on the article?
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
YouTube - John Piper - Get A Bible With All The Words
---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
YouTube - Accuracy of the TNIV Bible (?????...)
---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------
YouTube - John MacArthur Speaks about the TNIV Bible
---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
YouTube - Accuracy of the TNIV Bible (?????...)
---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------
YouTube - John MacArthur Speaks about the TNIV Bible
nasa30
Puritan Board Sophomore
Great link Lawrence! Thanks!
Reformed Roman
Puritan Board Freshman
Good post!
- Status
