# John 1:34 - NIV 2011



## BibleCyst (Oct 28, 2011)

John 1:34 - NIV 2011:


> I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.[a]
> 
> a. See Isaiah 42:1; many manuscripts is the Son of God.



Since my church is faithfully using the NIV and the 2011 revision will shortly be the only NIV on store shelves, I have been analyzing and comparing the revisions. This particular one baffled me. The traditional reading is Son of God, and as far as I can see, the NIV 2011 is the first translation that translates differently. Is there real Greek support for this revision? It cross references Isaiah 42:1, which definitely says chosen one. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 28, 2011)

CBMW » CBMW Responds to New NIV(2011)

I'm looking at NASB, ESV (which is pretty critical), KJV, YLT, and the Greek. It is clearly "the Son of God". None of the translations I just mentioned say "God's chosen One". Looking up in Metzger's Textual Commentary on John 1:34 it says, "Instead of "the Son of God" several witnesses, chiefly Western (condex Bezae is defective here), read "the chosen one of God"...and a few read "the chosen Son of God"... On the basis of age and diversity of witnesses a majority of the Committee preferred the reading "ὁ υἱὸς", which is also in harmony with the theological terminology of the Fourth Evangelist.

ὁ υἱὸς translates "the son". The Committee gave the reading, "the Son of God" a B rating, which is for them almost certain. There are four ratings, A is certain, then B, C - the Committee had difficulty deciding, and D is a little worse than C. 

FLEE FROM NIV 2011. It is not a faithful translation, as I might say concerning the one's I mentioned. It is direct from Satan himself. [I guess I'm not pulling any punches with this response]...


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Oct 28, 2011)

Chosen one almost gives the implication that Christ is on the same level as the Prophets of old.

While Christ is a prophet, he is also far more...the Son of God.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 28, 2011)

It's a textual variation. Some manuscripts have ο υιος του θεου, "the Son of God," and others have ο εκλεκτος του θεου, "the chosen one of God."

Metzger and UBS committee went with "Son of God," but the NIV Committee on Bible Translation have gone with "chosen one of God." The just-released SBL Greek New Testament also went with "chosen one of God."

Other English translations that go with "chosen one": The Lexham English Bible, the New Living Translation, and the NET Bible. Others include it in the footnotes as a viable option.

I see no reason to attribute this textual decision to the work of Satan. It's not as if the NIV is denying the sonship of Jesus. Jesus is called "Son of God" in many other places in the NIV.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 28, 2011)

Don, 

I was stating that the whole of the NIV 2011 is of Satan, not necessarily their translation of Jn. 1:34...


----------



## seajayrice (Oct 28, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Don,
> 
> I was stating that the whole of the NIV 2011 is of Satan, not necessarily their translation of Jn. 1:34...



I thought the NIV is of Zondervan


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2011)

Andrew, what other nefarious evidences do you have?


----------



## BibleCyst (Oct 29, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Andrew, what other nefarious evidences do you have?



+1


----------



## Weston Stoler (Oct 29, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Don,
> ...



first chuckle of the day *places medal*


----------



## Elimelek (Nov 5, 2011)

Dear Romans 922

You are confusing me. What makes the NIV2011 to be from Satan? Do you have evidence that supports such a claim? How do you determine which translations are from Satan and which are not?

Kind regards


----------



## BibleCyst (Nov 11, 2011)

Does anybody here on the Puritan Board support this change? I'd be interested in hearing the other side.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 11, 2011)

Here's a scholarly article defending "chosen one of God."
Timo Flink, «Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34.» Filologia-Neotestamentaria, Vol. 18 (2005) 85-109


----------



## Edward (Nov 11, 2011)

Earlier threads on NIV 2011

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/sbc-rejection-niv-2011-a-68288/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/niv-2011-a-62556/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/niv-2011-a-68963/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/new-niv-available-today-biblegateway-64067/

I'd be concerned about anyone promoting NIV 2011. The best that can be said of it is that it isn't as bad as TNIV.

I used the original NIV in the 80s, but there are better translations out there today.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> I was stating that the whole of the NIV 2011 is of Satan, not necessarily their translation of Jn. 1:34.



[Moderator]Andrew, I think that this remark must either be substantiated or withdrawn. It is an accusation, an indictment, and one that cannot therefore be received without confirming evidence.[/Moderator]


----------



## Todd King (Nov 11, 2011)

Forgive me for intruding on Andrew's plight, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Nestle-Aland, UBS, and other greek texts, with the exception of the Textus Receptus, are all translated from the text first trnaslated and handed down from Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, as they freely admit in their own autobiographies and is mentioned in the biographies of them written by their own sons, were, at the time of translation, members of Madame Blavatsky's Luciferian Society, the Apostle's Guild and other satanic societies. Therefore, any text translated from these texts should be considered suspect. Furthermore, in regards to the NIV in particular, one of the members of the translation committee is a self-avowed lesbian, as such, we know that her worldview and agenda must have infiltrated the translation to some extent. Finally, even though the NIV retains some of the references to the "Son of God," reality is they have removed the vast majority of references to Christ being the Son of God, so even one more destruction of this vital cross-reference should be considered to be a big deal. Just for the record, Christ is not the chosen one. He is God. When we begin referring to "The Christ" as "The Chosen One" it opens the door for the occultists to usher in the New World Order with their "Chosen One," "The Christ."


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 11, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I was stating that the whole of the NIV 2011 is of Satan, not necessarily their translation of Jn. 1:34.
> ...



Basically, I believe the translators purposefully, in their translation, are dumbing down God's Word, making it seem more nice (and in doing so take truth out), are changing God's Word so some aren't offended, and through it have become man-pleasers instead of doing a sacred duty to translate the text accurately. All of this can be seen if you look at the many links that critique the NIV 2011 (not that they call it Satanic, but the major translation problems there are, that affect the meaning of major doctrines of Scripture). 

One church body has already rejected it (rightly in my opinion): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/sbc-rejection-niv-2011-a-68288/#post875610

I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, not a hill I am going to die on. But I wouldn't ever recommend it as a faithful and acceptable translation of the sacred Word of God.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Finally, even though the NIV retains some of the references to the "Son of God," reality is they have removed the vast majority of references to Christ being the Son of God, so even one more destruction of this vital cross-reference should be considered to be a big deal.



Where are you getting this information? I just ran a search in BibleWorks and found that the KJV uses the phrase "Son of God" 48 times. The NIV uses it 40 times. Of the 8 differences, 6 of them are just variations in phrasing (God's Son, Son of the Most High God, etc.); the other 2 are textual variants. So, no widespread devastation of a biblical theme here.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 12, 2011)

The NIV 2011 is not the work of Satan, just liberal Bible scholars, who are often even more dangerous because they have deceived many of the brethren as evidenced by this thread.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 12, 2011)

The NIV should be evaluated based on the merits and lack thereof of the translation decisions made. Attacks on the translators is uncalled for. One of the members of the NIV translation committee is a friend of mine, and I would ask that you not slander him. He is a conservative, inerrantist, complementarian scholar and an upstanding Christian man.

Regarding the SBC resolution, I believe some who spoke against it are guilty of slander and spreading misinformation. They led the convention to vote against it based on ignorance.

You can watch the convention video here.The SBC Resolution on the NIV | Denny Burk

The initial proposer said that "A woman is called a deacon instead of a servant. Those of you who know Greek and Hebrew understand the point being made there." The proposer clearly doesn't know Greek, but falsely implies that those who know Greek and Hebrew would take issue with it. Yet, the word in Greek is _diakonos_. "Deacon" is actually a more literal translation of the Greek.

One of the speakers said "God is a he, Jesus is a he, the Holy Spirit is a he." Not only is he wrong in terms of gender (the Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek), he is also inferring that the NIV does not affirm God's masculinity. That is a completely false misrepresentation of the NIV, and it deceived the convention, leading them to vote against the NIV based on a lie.

CBMW has also falsely impugned the motives of the NIV translation committee without any basis. They (as well as the SBC messengers) accused the NIV translators as having a feminist agenda when in fact many of the translators, including the chair and the vice-chair of the committee, are complementarian. Douglas Moo, the chair of the committee, even wrote an article for CBMW's book _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_.

In particular, CBMW says translating 1 Tim. 2:12 as "assume authority" is catering to a feminist agenda, but this is the definition found in BDAG, the standard Greek lexicon, and the KJV has "usurp authority."

CBMW also demands unnatural English translations such as "forefather" for "ancestor" to preserve gender, when "forefather" has all but disappeared in English usage, except in very particular contexts such as referring to the founders of the United States.

The NIV is not of Satan. The NIV clearly proclaims the gospel unto salvation. As Jesus himself said, a house divided against itself can not stand. Casting out demons cannot be the work of Satan. In the same way, the gospel proclaimed in the NIV is releasing people from Satan's clutches; it is not the work of Satan.

Again, if you want to have a beneficial discussion about the NIV, we should discuss the pros and cons of given translation choices. Impugning the motives of the NIV translators or calling them names is neither productive nor edifying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 12, 2011)

The initial proposer said that "A woman is called a deacon instead of a servant. Those of you who know Greek and Hebrew understand the point being made there." The proposer clearly doesn't know Greek, but falsely implies that those who know Greek and Hebrew would take issue with it. Yet, the word in Greek is _diakonos_. "Deacon" is actually a more literal translation of the Greek.

Deacon is a transliteration of_ diakonos_, not a translation. The translation is "servant".


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 13, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Forgive me for intruding on Andrew's plight, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Nestle-Aland, UBS, and other greek texts, with the exception of the Textus Receptus, are all translated from the text first trnaslated and handed down from Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, as they freely admit in their own autobiographies and is mentioned in the biographies of them written by their own sons, were, at the time of translation, members of Madame Blavatsky's Luciferian Society, the Apostle's Guild and other satanic societies. Therefore, any text translated from these texts should be considered suspect. Furthermore, in regards to the NIV in particular, one of the members of the translation committee is a self-avowed lesbian, as such, we know that her worldview and agenda must have infiltrated the translation to some extent. Finally, even though the NIV retains some of the references to the "Son of God," reality is they have removed the vast majority of references to Christ being the Son of God, so even one more destruction of this vital cross-reference should be considered to be a big deal. Just for the record, Christ is not the chosen one. He is God. When we begin referring to "The Christ" as "The Chosen One" it opens the door for the occultists to usher in the New World Order with their "Chosen One," "The Christ."



Do you have documentation of their membership in Madame Blavatsky's "Luciferian Society?" Is that a reference to the Theosophical Society? (Gail Riplinger isn't going to cut it as a source.) I'm not generally a defender of W & H, but I'd like to see some credible documentation for that charge. Something that old, if it indeed exists, is probably available on Google Books.


----------



## Todd King (Nov 14, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me for intruding on Andrew's plight, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Nestle-Aland, UBS, and other greek texts, with the exception of the Textus Receptus, are all translated from the text first trnaslated and handed down from Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, as they freely admit in their own autobiographies and is mentioned in the biographies of them written by their own sons, were, at the time of translation, members of Madame Blavatsky's Luciferian Society, the Apostle's Guild and other satanic societies. Therefore, any text translated from these texts should be considered suspect. Furthermore, in regards to the NIV in particular, one of the members of the translation committee is a self-avowed lesbian, as such, we know that her worldview and agenda must have infiltrated the translation to some extent. Finally, even though the NIV retains some of the references to the "Son of God," reality is they have removed the vast majority of references to Christ being the Son of God, so even one more destruction of this vital cross-reference should be considered to be a big deal. Just for the record, Christ is not the chosen one. He is God. When we begin referring to "The Christ" as "The Chosen One" it opens the door for the occultists to usher in the New World Order with their "Chosen One," "The Christ."
> ...



In reviewing my earlier research to evaluate Ripplinger's claims, I found that I had made the mistake of confusing W. W. Westcott with B. F. Westcott. As such, I apologize and withdraw my earlier statement. I also thank my brethren here on the PB for stimulating me into reviewing my earlier, erroneous work.

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

By the way, is there a smiley for eating crow or inserting foot in mouth?!?


----------



## elnwood (Nov 14, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Furthermore, in regards to the NIV in particular, one of the members of the translation committee is a self-avowed lesbian, as such, we know that her worldview and agenda must have infiltrated the translation to some extent.



Another correction needs to be made. The lesbian in question, Virginia Mollenkott, was not a member of the translation committee. She was an English literature professor who served as a language stylist consultant. She did not come out of the closet until later.

Did her worldview and agenda infiltrate and corrupt the NIV as a English stylist consultant? Doubtful.


----------



## Todd King (Nov 14, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, in regards to the NIV in particular, one of the members of the translation committee is a self-avowed lesbian, as such, we know that her worldview and agenda must have infiltrated the translation to some extent.
> ...




I have already admitted speaking in error. I withdraw my full statement excepting the last sentence of my post- that I stand by. Thanks again to my brethren who caught my errors.


----------



## BibleCyst (Nov 15, 2011)

Todd King said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Todd King said:
> ...



Thank you for being humble, brother. I would highly recommend reading The King James Only Controversy by James White. He touches on a lot of this stuff.


----------

