Niv 2011

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by Misunderstood Calvinist, Jul 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Misunderstood Calvinist

    Misunderstood Calvinist Puritan Board Freshman

    The head pastor of my church held up a (NIV 2011) Bible today in service and claims that the whole congregation should look into using this Bible when we read scripture. I have not heard much about this new translation. I was not a fan of the TNIV when it was released, but I have only looked into this (the NIV 2011) recently. Has anyone heard any information on this translation or could send me links about this new translation?
     
  2. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Senior

    My understanding is that is a revision of the NIV that incorporates some of the gender neutral language of the TNIV. Other than that, it is very similar to the previous edition. The question then becomes what is the motivation for doing this? The answer to that question will give you alot of insight into the thinking of the translation commitee and then you can make your own judgment as to whether or not you would put any faith into a translation produced by said commitee.
     
  3. HoldFast

    HoldFast Puritan Board Freshman

    This is what I don't understand. Were NIV fans really upset about the gender usage in the previous NIV edition? I can't imagine that was the case. Therefore, it appears there was some type of "gender agenda" but what that agenda would be about I haven't a clue.
     
  4. kodos

    kodos Puritan Board Sophomore

    Hi Dan!
    Welcome to the PuritanBoard! I see that your church is PCUSA, hopefully one of the more orthodox churches left in the denomination? What translation have you been using thus far?
     
  5. "William The Baptist"

    "William The Baptist" Puritan Board Freshman

    I am not sure if this is the correct way to direct you to another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/sbc-rejection-niv-2011-a-68288/

    The gender neutral changes is the biggest thing. I am not a fan. You could say it is very feministically friendly. For example compare these two verses of NIV's:

    1984 NIV: 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
    2011 NIV: 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
     
  6. DMcFadden

    DMcFadden Moderator Staff Member

    [​IMG]

    For a very full evaluation of the NIV 2011 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, cf. https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/cbmw final analysis of 2011 niv.pdf

    Among their conclusions:
     
  7. Edward

    Edward Puritan Board Doctor

    My suggestion would be to start by asking the pastor why he is recommending it.
     
  8. elnwood

    elnwood Puritan Board Junior

    The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (confessional Lutherans) assembled a translation evaluation committee to evaluate the NIV2011 with respect to using it as their translation of choice for their publications.

    They assembled a group of their scholars to study the issues and communicate with the NIV translation committee, and have had numerous interactions with Douglas Moo, the chair of the NIV committee. (Moo is a complementarian who contributed one of the main chapters to CBMW's "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," and there are several other complementarians on the translation committee. It's important to note this: much nonsense has been spread regarding the NIV having an egalitarian, feminist agenda.)

    What follows is their initial evaluation report, and I commend it to all of you as a responsible evaluation of the NIV2011.
    http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf

    I believe the way WELS evaluated the translation is a model of how Christians ought to consider translations: forming a committee to discuss, using scholarly expertise, and discussing with the translators themselves about their philosophy of translation, over a period of over a year.

    Compare that with the Southern Baptist Convention, which passed a resolution on the floor against the NIV 2011. It was proposed by a layman with no scholarly background, and voted on by uninformed layman, who were influenced by false statements spoken on the floor, including implying that the NIV2011 said that God was not masculine.
     
  9. steadfast7

    steadfast7 Puritan Board Junior

    I don't see a lot of difference between these two renderings. In fact to "assume" authority is a pretty good way of putting it, no? Thoughts?
     
  10. elnwood

    elnwood Puritan Board Junior

    This verb only appears once in the New Testament, so its meaning isn't as clear as we'd like. BDAG glosses it "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to." The NIV2011 translation seems well within that range.

    CBMW argues that "assume authority" is an egalitarian translation:
    "The new NIV(2011)’s translation of authentein designedly lends itself to a common current egalitarian misinterpretation of this passage (i.e., that Paul is only addressing the case of women illegitimately “assuming” authority, rather than prohibiting women from having/exercising authority as teacher/shepherds of the church)."

    Personally, I think CBMW is way off base on that. "Assume authority" is a neutral rendering directly from the lexicon. Besides, the KJV has "usurp authority," and I don't see CBMW accusing the KJV translators of having an egalitarian agenda.
     
  11. steadfast7

    steadfast7 Puritan Board Junior

    Agree. "to assume" is a mark of attitude, whereas to "take" authority indicates an action. Attitudes are deeper and more sinister in some sense than actions, so this could be read as more favourable to the complementarian position in fact.
     
  12. elnwood

    elnwood Puritan Board Junior

    From our Confessionally Reformed brand of Christianity, the NIV seems liberal, but you have to understand that from the standpoint of mainline denominations like the PCUSA, the NIV is far-right conservative. The World Council of Churches, of which the PCUSA is a member, translated the NRSV, so that is the standard Bible in the PCUSA, and has been for decades.

    The Biblical Studies division at Fuller Theological Seminary, largely a PCUSA institution, approves specific translations for use in their classes based on their level of gender inclusivity. For many years, the NRSV and the TNIV were the only approved translations. Recently they approved the Common English Bible, a new ecumenical translation. (The NIV2011 did not get approved because it used the word "mankind.")
    Common English Bible Replaces TNIV at Seminary, Christian News

    So if a PCUSA pastor is endorsing the NIV2011, and not the Common English Bible or NRSV, he is on the conservative end of the PCUSA.
     
  13. Reformation Monk

    Reformation Monk Puritan Board Freshman

    Don,

    In my humble opinion; there really is no more "conservative end" in the PCUSA.

    If there isn't good expositional preaching done, then in my opinion, it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

    If the Bible isn't looked upon as the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God, then it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

    When you see adults walking around with Rob Bell books rather then the Bible, then ...... etc... etc...

    My advice to Dan is to not worry about what the ruling elders want to use as their translation and rather, to start looking at what's being done and said all across the board.

    I realize that this is a really tough position with the OP because he's a Youth Pastor. This has got to be frustrating, being Reformed and a leader in the PCUSA. My prayers are with you Dan.
     
  14. JoannaV

    JoannaV Puritan Board Sophomore

    I second Edward. Unless the pastor has a significant reason to prefer the NIV 2011, I do not see why he would advise everybody to spend money on a new Bible. Either he feels there is a significant reason, or he did not think about this thoroughly before making his comment. So perhaps see what he has to say :)
     
  15. elnwood

    elnwood Puritan Board Junior

    Largely, I agree with you -- there are very few conservatives in the PCUSA. But the PCUSA is very diverse and largely depends on region. The PCUSA in California, for example, is more conservative than in other places in the U.S.

    You seem to presume that there is no good expository preaching or inerrantists in the PCUSA. That's simply not true. My Greek exegesis and homiletics professor is a PCUSA pastor, and he taught us that the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant, and taught us to preach expository messages.
     
  16. Rich Koster

    Rich Koster Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Dennis, you always seem to lay hold of goodies like this. Thanks for being alert.


     
  17. Reformation Monk

    Reformation Monk Puritan Board Freshman

    Don,

    You're right, I apologize for my earlier comment. I'm just a little frustrated with the PCUSA. I've was involved for many years and after this new amendment change and other recent events over the past couple of years, at least where I live, it's a all going downhill very very fast. It was a very tough decision for my family and I but we just couldn't stay members any longer.
     
  18. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable Staff Member

    I recently bought a parallel KJV and NIV2011 bible to compare various verses particular to Reformed doctrine. So far, I have not run into any examples where I was alarmed by the NIV2011 renderings that would prevent me from making the same arguments for the doctrines of grace that I can with the KJV or the NKJV. Am not saying I think the NIV2011 is a wonderful translation, as I prefer the Byzantine manuscript traditions, but it is not a bible I would assign to the work of the devil or anything. ;)

    AMR
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page