# NIV Concerns



## Taylor (Jan 4, 2016)

Hello, all.

I would like to start off by saying that I have *greatly* appreciated the absolute wealth of discussion on this board regarding different translations of the Sacred Text. I am truly indebted to the comments of Mr. Rafalsky (Jerusalem Blade), Rev. Winzer (MW), Mr. McFadden (DMcFadden), and a few others whose names I cannot recall at the moment. I have recently been grappling with these issues myself. I *love* the AV; I was raised on it. However, my main concern is not so much the underlying Greek text. Even though I am in a seminary which assumes the superiority of the CT, I am slowly becoming convinced of the Byzantine position. Hence, my concern is doctrine. For instance, with the NIV (a translation I actually greatly like), I can defend certain doctrines with far more ease, it seems, than the AV. For example:

1) Original Sin is so clear in Ps. 51:5.
2) Homosexuality is easier to refute. (This is the case with almost all modern versions since the word "homosexual" was not in the AV translators' English toolbox.)
3) The deity of Christ is amazingly clear. Look at Jn. 1:18 in the NIV (2011).
4) Refuting Dispensational theology is simple. Observe Gal. 6:16 in the NIV (2011).

There are other examples, I'm sure. This is a problem for me since I adore the AV so highly. Call it exegetical laziness, but the ease with which I can defend certain doctrines keeps me with the NIV.

Those of you on this board who primarily use the AV, does this pose a problem for you? If so, why not?

Thank you all in advance for what I know will be immense insight.


----------



## Jake (Jan 4, 2016)

Have you considered looking into other translations based on the majority text or the TR to see how they address your concerns? I tend to use KJV primarily but sometimes use the YLT or Geneva Bible for instance. I'd have to look at each of the issues you raise.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 5, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Hello, all.
> 
> I would like to start off by saying that I have *greatly* appreciated the absolute wealth of discussion on this board regarding different translations of the Sacred Text. I am truly indebted to the comments of Mr. Rafalsky (Jerusalem Blade), Rev. Winzer (MW), Mr. McFadden (DMcFadden), and a few others whose names I cannot recall at the moment. I have recently been grappling with these issues myself. I *love* the AV; I was raised on it. However, my main concern is not so much the underlying Greek text. Even though I am in a seminary which assumes the superiority of the CT, I am slowly becoming convinced of the Byzantine position. Hence, my concern is doctrine. For instance, with the NIV (a translation I actually greatly like), I can defend certain doctrines with far more ease, it seems, than the AV. For example:
> 
> ...



Personally I prefer the KJV over every other English version (based upon the criteria by which I measure translations), but that doesn't mean I have to make the specious argument that it is better than every other translation in all of its readings. 

When I am preaching from my KJV, if there is another version that sheds significant light upon the text I have no problem with citing it. Whatever version you are using, you can always find places where another translation will appear to give a better reading in some places than the one you're using.

Speaking of being concerned over doctrinal issues within a translation...I'd say the KJV has far fewer doctrinal discrepancies than does the NIV (especially after the 2011 update). That said, while I have far more issues (far far far far more!) with the NIV than I do the KJV, I own several NIVs and consult that version with some regularity to see how they rendered a particular text I am studying.

Don't fall into the KJVO trap that says to maintain your preference for the KJV (and even consider it superior over all than other English translations) means you have to say it is therefore more accurate in every single solitary place. That's an indefensible position and is totally unnecessary for the overall claims one can make in its favor.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 5, 2016)

The NIV can often seem to provide a "better" translation simply because it tends to put things in more modern English and because it also tends to be interpretive. This tendency to be interpretive is helpful in places where the meaning of a passage is hardly disputed, however in other places this same tendency is far from helpful and can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It is better to simply render the passage as closely into English as possible and allow the reader to do the work of exegesis. This is, after all, why it is called Bible _study_ and not simply Bible _reading_.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> There are other examples, I'm sure. This is a problem for me since I adore the AV so highly. Call it exegetical laziness, but the ease with which I can defend certain doctrines keeps me with the NIV.
> 
> Those of you on this board who primarily use the AV, does this pose a problem for you? If so, why not?


All of your examples are ones of using a single verse to defend your doctrines. That makes the arguments and doctrines exceedingly week.

Comments on your examples:

The corruption and propagation of original sin are not explained in your verse. The only way that verse works for original sin is if a host of other verses are used along with it.

Refuting homosexuatlity from the Bible is based on far more than which English word is used by a translation. I have heard it argued against from live exposition of the Greek which had far more impact than from the English. And refuting homosexuality is more than just finding arguments against it (there is a limited set of passages which do that), but also finding every place which supports marriage of a man and a woman.

An argument for the deity of Christ in John 1 will not stand up in an argument with a Mormon [correction: Jehovah's Witness]. Many Mormons [JW's] are trained specifically to refute the Greek in John 1 of Jesus' deity. There are other Scriptures which cannot be refuted.

My own example:

I have listened to an exegetical series of sermons on the Trinity by a Baptist pastor. He proved the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament before looking at the New Testament. This is in contrast to one of the points of argument between KJV and NIV people - the Comma Johanneum. The doctrine of the Trinity should not stand or fall based on one verse with a textual variant.

So your comment of "exegetical laziness" might be valid.

[edit: I used the word Mormon where I should have said Jehovah's Witness]


----------



## Taylor (Jan 5, 2016)

KeithW said:


> So your comment of "exegetical laziness" might be valid.



I am not sure if you meant to sound offensive or aggressive, using my own joking comment against me, or what. Either way, I do not at all appreciate the abuse of my question—a seeming effort to unearth a perceived problem in my presentation, implying that I am trying somehow, as if like a dimwit, to defend the practice of hanging doctrine on cherry-picked verses. I am fully aware of the issue of hanging any teaching on a singular verse; I do not need to be informed of that problem. I am well familiar with both Greek and Hebrew as well as the procedures of basic Scripture interpretation. Allow me to remind you that this discussion is about various opinions regarding doctrinal clarity between two very different translations of Scripture and not about systematic-theological method.

Thanks.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2016)

Granting that the Hebrew and Greek are the court of appeal in disputed points, I view the NIV's dynamic equivalence and doctrinal neutrality as prejudicial against the doctrines of grace. One only has to look at the added qualifications in a locus classicus like Romans 9:16 to see this. Instead of "effective assumption" in Heb. 2:16, NIV teaches bare assistance. In 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, God's will is turned into a "want;" and in John 17:24, our Saviour's mediatorial will is likewise turned into a "want."

The rendering of Ps. 51:5 has removed the sense of "propagation" in original sin.

Translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" leads to numerous doctrinal problems, especially the two nature doctrine of sanctification when applied to believers, and in Romans 7 makes it difficult to refer Paul's experience to the regenerate man.

The only-begotten Son has been made to disappear from history, and instead we only hear of a one and only son in the Gospel of John.

Sodomites have been rendered male shrine prostitutes.

There is no "testament" in the NIV, which affects both covenant theology and the doctrines of grace. C.f. WCF 7.4.

Again, final appeal is to be made to the Hebrew and Greek, but translation is intended for those who cannot understand these languages, and should be conducted with the aim that the word of God might dwell "plentifully" in all.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 6, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Either way, I do not at all appreciate the abuse of my question...


I apologize if I came across as being abusive or offensive. That was not my intent.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Allow me to remind you that this discussion is about various opinions regarding doctrinal clarity between two very different translations of Scripture and not about systematic-theological method.


This is exactly how I understood the original question. You did not ask about Scriptural clarity but about _doctrinal _clarity based on different English translations.

The Bible is not organized by doctrinal subject matter but doctrines are interwoven throughout the Bible. Someone has to do the work of digging those out of the Bible. The result is an overarching description of a doctrine plus a list of verses it is derived from. Different English translations are going to have different lists of verses which support that doctrine. The differences could be in vocabulary, grammar, or textual basis. In the list of verses which support a doctrine, one English translation will be clear on one doctrine and unclear on another. A different English translation will be the opposite.

Again my apologies.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 10, 2016)

The NIV is problematic in one place in particular that I have dealt with ad nauseam with worldly people attempting to excuse disbelief.

The NIV, HCSB and other versions attempting to be more modern in their language, translate Deuteronomy 22:28 as "rape." Versions that do not: ESV, ASV, KJV, NASB and all the older versions.

This fact alone is responsible for the multitude of claims by uninformed nonchristians who unquestioningly regurgitate, "the Bible says that a woman has to marry her rapist."

Because of the prevalence of this claim alone, I would hesitate not to give someone an NIV, lest upon hearing this oft-repeated accusation, they look up the verse, and confirm it to themselves. If they heard it and looked it up in the KJV, they would simply see that the man 'takes hold of a young woman and lies with her.' They would be able to look Deuteronomy 22:25 and see that the KJV, ESV et al render it as "forces her and lies with her." So the difference becomes quite distinct.

verse 25 is about rape. verse 28 is about consensual fornication
verse 25 in NIV: rape. verse 28 in NIV: rape
verse 25 in KJV: forces and lies with. verse 28 in KJV: takes hold of and lies with.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

Vox Oculi said:


> The NIV is problematic in one place in particular that I have dealt with ad nauseam with worldly people attempting to excuse disbelief.
> 
> The NIV, HCSB and other versions attempting to be more modern in their language, translate Deuteronomy 22:28 as "rape." Versions that do not: ESV, ASV, KJV, NASB and all the older versions.
> 
> ...



I do hope you were not implying that I am trying to rebut with "worldly unbelief." If so, I truly am not trying to do so. In fact, the more I have studied the issue recently, the more convinced I am becoming regarding the KJV's superiority (thanks to several members of this forum). What I am doing is an honest endeavor.



KeithW said:


> I apologize if I came across as being abusive or offensive. That was not my intent.



I do tend to read between the lines too often, rather than giving my brothers and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt in conversation. I apologize, as well, for my strong and uncalled-for over-reaction.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 27, 2016)

Can you defend the doctrine of 'propitiation' from the NIV?


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 27, 2016)

Friend, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and consider that others posting were trying to engage your OP and were not trying to offend. As far as your questions go, as a pew-dweller I am fine with hearing about places where a translation is weak -- I always check mine and make a note if the comment is relevant to the NASB translation I use. (i.e. if NASB used the same word in question). I appreciate the original language and exegetical skills of my pastor. If you are trying to engage the world on issues, I'd suggest going forward in the authority of God's word. I.e. trusting that it will be persausive to those whose hearts have been prepared by the spirit, regardless of the valid (as opposed to JW or something like that) translation you're using.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 27, 2016)

Taylor the Byzantine Text is your friend. Repeat it.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> Can you defend the doctrine of 'propitiation' from the NIV?



This is one of my biggest concerns with the NIV. I think I might be able to, but the argument is severely weakened, I believe, when the word itself is avoided in the translation.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> Friend, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and consider that others posting were trying to engage your OP and were not trying to offend.



I do understand this, and I thank you for your admonishment. I realize I reacted unfairly to my brother above (for which I have apologized). I engage in debates with people quite often on the web, and I fear it has bred in me a quickness at times to respond in defense and offense rather than with reason and charity, especially with my brothers and sisters. I ask the pardon of all who read this thread for my brashness.


----------



## Logan (Jan 27, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> Can you defend the doctrine of 'propitiation' from the NIV?



How about "Trinity" from the KJV? The lack of the word itself doesn't mean the doctrine isn't contained.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

Logan said:


> How about "Trinity" from the KJV? The lack of the word itself doesn't mean the doctrine isn't contained.



I understand what he is saying. I think the issue is that it is more difficult to argue it from the NIV, since the translators deliberately averted the issue of propitiation/expiation with ἱλασμός in, for example, 1 John 2:2. I don't think anyone is arguing that the presence of absence of a word determines the existence of a doctrine; everyone here, being Trinitarian, understands that to be suspect. However, when a word _is_ present (ἱλασμός), yet it is left undecided upon, can be a problem. Sure, I can probably defend propitiation from the NIV, but I would have to go into the Greek term, connect it with Septuagint usage, present a case for propitiation being part of what a "sacrifice of atonement" was/is, but even then I would probably be accused of adding to the Word of God by Arminians or some other group (I think propitiation is an important term in the discussion of limited atonement). However, it would be much easier to do like almost every other major translation and just render the term "propitiation" in the English text and be done with it.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 27, 2016)

Likely propitiation is not used in NIV because it has no modern usage, which is one of the inherent weaknesses in dynamic equivalence.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2016)

Logan said:


> How about "Trinity" from the KJV?



1 John 5:7 -- these THREE (tri) are ONE (unity).


----------

