# Question about Proverbs 16:25



## ElainaMor (Nov 16, 2013)

I was reading the ESV and NIV side-by-side in my YouVersion app and noticed the difference in translation in Proverbs 16:25

ESV
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

NIV
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

I'm not sure if I'm seeing a problem or not but to me leaving off "to a man" kinda weakens the meaning of this verse. What are your opinions? Am I seeing an issue that just isn't there?


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 16, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> I was reading the ESV and NIV side-by-side in my YouVersion app and noticed the difference in translation in Proverbs 16:25
> 
> ESV
> There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.
> ...



My older NIV has the translation "There is a way that seems right to a man". Are you quoting from the NIV 2011? If so, then the reference to "a man" may have seemed overly gender specific to the translators (i.e. not applying to women). Though I'm not sure why in that case they didn't go with "there is a way that seems right to a person" as one of the Jewish translations does. I'm not sure that the meaning is dramatically changed by the omission (who would it appear to be right to except to a person?), but there is no good reason to omit the words here and there is no question that the ESV is a better translation of the verse. This is one reason why many people prefer translations like the ESV or HCSV (or the KJV) that are a bit more literal in their translational philosophy.


----------



## Edward (Nov 16, 2013)

Because it is more important to the current NIV folks to be gender neutral, than it is to be accurate?


----------



## ElainaMor (Nov 16, 2013)

iainduguid said:


> ElainaMor said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading the ESV and NIV side-by-side in my YouVersion app and noticed the difference in translation in Proverbs 16:25
> ...



Yes, I'm reading from the NIV 2011. I generally like the way the NIV reads but when I camea cross this it made me wonder what else they may have deliberately left out for the sake of gender neutrality. I'm not super familiar with the Bible yet so in my daily reading if something was left out I probably wouldn't catch it. I only noticed this because I decided to read Proverbs in both versions. Just leaves me wondering if I can really trust the NIV 2011 or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.


----------



## ElainaMor (Nov 16, 2013)

Edward said:


> Because it is more important to the current NIV folks to be gender neutral, than it is to be accurate?



Not saying this to be argumentative...but are you implying that the NIV is not an accurate/reliable translation?


----------



## Tim (Nov 16, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> Not saying this to be argumentative...but are you implying that the NIV is not an accurate/reliable translation?



The word "man" is in the Hebrew: H376, according to Strong's numbers.


----------



## Edward (Nov 16, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> are you implying that the NIV is not an accurate/reliable translation?



I only imply it when I don't come right out and say it. The original NIV was fine, and I used it for years. TNIV and later should be avoided. I'm not one of the KJV only folks; I tend to go with the ESV (although I'm not as big a fan as many folks), NKJV, original NIV. Others that are useful are the KJV for folks comfortable with early modern English, Holman, NET.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 17, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> I was reading the ESV and NIV side-by-side in my YouVersion app and noticed the difference in translation in Proverbs 16:25
> 
> ESV
> There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.
> ...





Tim said:


> ElainaMor said:
> 
> 
> > Not saying this to be argumentative...but are you implying that the NIV is not an accurate/reliable translation?
> ...



that seems to be the case, must be the gender neutral NIV that is being used as Iain has noted the older NIV (1984 ?)
version has it,
knowing that both the ESV & NIV probably use a different Hebrew Text than The KJB's Hebrew Masoretic Text say it is the
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or Leningrad, so I compared them to The KJB and was pleasantly surprised at how close the
ESV was to the KJB reading; 

KJB There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
ESV There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

The KJB has plural ways of death, depends on what the Hebrew rendering is I don't know,
but truth & logic dictate that there is more than one way fallen man follows to his death.

The NIV definitely deletes the word Man, though I can't see were the objection to the word man is as feminists probably wouldn't read the Bible so it isn't necessary to delete it, Man is a generic term for Mankind.

I believe there may also be a difference in meaning between the word appears & word seems depending on the 
definition taken.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 17, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> Man is a generic term for Mankind.



Indeed it is. Or is it?

After years of complaining whenever "man" was changed to "person" is such situations (_don't people know it means mankind?!!)_, I have come to realize that to an increasing number of people "man" does sound odd these days. Such people really do hear a verse like that and think, "That sounds like it doesn't include women"—meaning they actually misunderstand the verse when "man" is used. So, although I shake my head at that in frustration, I also have to acknowledge that for whatever reason language usage is changing.

Such changes do create legitimate challenges for translators, who must struggle in a case like this to translate a world when its usage in the original language doesn't really have an equivalent usage in the reader's language. As I've realized how that particular usage _is_ changing (and not just among feminists), I've reluctantly come to admit that maybe I ought not be as much of a stick-in-the-mud grouch about this as I have been.

Still, it seems there are problems when "man" is simply changed to "person." Not only does it sound cold, it also fails to communicate the difference between man and God, since we use "person" to refer to members of the Godhead as well as to created human beings. That's a problem in a case like this verse, and it may be why the translators didn't go with "person." I suppose they decided "to a man/person" was implied and therefore not necessary. But I think something is lost. Although "to a man/person" is implied, the point of the verse is such that it needs to be emphasized and therefore included.


----------

