# Question on Luke 1:37



## ElainaMor (Dec 20, 2013)

I was reading Luke 1 in NIV 2011 this morning and when I came to verse 37 it said this: "For no word from God will ever fail.” I didn't remember that verse saying that so I checked with other versions online and they all say: "For with God nothing is impossible." I'm wondering why the NIV translated that verse the way it did. Is it a mistranslation or translation choice? Just seems odd that the NIV is the only one that translates it this way. 

I really want to like the NIV but when I come across quirks like this it really makes me doubt the translation.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 20, 2013)

Interesting. The 1984 NIV says something like "nothing is impossible with God." I know because I've taught it and had kids look it up in that Bible so as to make a connection to the Lord's statement to Sarah concerning her child in Genesis 18. This means the translators must have had something that caused them to make a deliberate change. I'm interested to learn what that might be, too.


----------



## Edward (Dec 20, 2013)

Jack K said:


> The 1984 NIV says something like "nothing is impossible with God."



"For nothing is impossible with God"



Jack K said:


> This means the translators must have had something that caused them to make a deliberate change.



Well, it's the modern NIV crowd. They had reasons for all of their changes. 




ElainaMor said:


> I really want to like the NIV



Why? 



ElainaMor said:


> but when I come across quirks like this it really makes me doubt the translation.



That's not the biggest problem that you'll find with the modern versions of the NIV. If you are really set on the NIV, look in used book stores for the original version. TNIV and later are NOT suitable for use.


----------



## ElainaMor (Dec 20, 2013)

Edward said:


> ElainaMor said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to like the NIV
> ...



I'm not being combative but why not? Why is the NIV not good to use? I'm honestly asking cause I really don't know the differences between translations. Coming from a JW background I'm only familiar with the NWT. I just like the NIV because it's easy to understand. Another question, if not the NIV then what translation would you recommend?


----------



## Logan (Dec 20, 2013)

Calvin says:


> *For no word shall be impossible with God.* If we choose to take ῥη̑μα, word, in its strict and native sense, the meaning is, that *God will do what he hath promised*, for no hinderance can resist his power. The argument will be, God hath promised, and therefore he will accomplish it; for we ought not to allege any impossibility in opposition to his word. But as a *word* often means a *thing* in the idiom of the Hebrew language, (which the Evangelists followed, though they wrote in Greek,) we explain it more simply, that *nothing is impossible with God*



So it seems like the NIV 2011 tried to be more literal in rendering "word". It does seem to obscure the meaning a bit though.


----------



## Edward (Dec 20, 2013)

While many on this board would limit themselves to the KJV, I'm not one of them. I'd recommend any of these over the TNIV or the NIV as presently sold, although any translation is going to have its drawbacks. 

1984 NIV
New King James
ESV
Hollman
NET



ElainaMor said:


> Why is the NIV not good to use?



After the widespread success of the original NIV, they tried to broaden the market by coming out with the 'politically correct' gender neutral TNIV. While the current version (sold now as the NIV, but previously known as the NIV 2011) backed off of some of the worst excesses of the TNIV, it must be carefully parsed for remaining, less readily apparent, error.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 20, 2013)

I personally wouldn't prefer the ESV or the HCSB, but I would recommend these over the NIV 2011. I think the clarity you may be enjoying in the NIV may be likened to the following illustration which includes the use of two pictures.





For all the clarity each little square offers, when seen as a whole, the message becomes obscured. Not only so, but one is only allowed to see certain aspects of the whole according to the translator's obvious gender-neutral agenda.

Another translation may offer a bit more complexity, but the payoff is a clearer picture; as demonstrated below.





Reading a translation such as the NIV 2011 may offer a certain clarity, but this is an illusion. The NIV 2011 is oversimplified to a fault. This is illustrated by the first picture.


----------



## ElainaMor (Dec 20, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> I personally wouldn't prefer the ESV or the HCSB, but I would recommend these over the NIV 2011. I think the clarity you may be enjoying in the NIV may be likened to the following illustration which includes the use of two pictures.
> 
> View attachment 3735
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying and totally get it. Can I ask why you don't prefer the ESV or HCSB?


----------



## Edward (Dec 21, 2013)

Here is an article that presents a more balanced approach to the current NIV than would I, but still concludes that it is an agenda based translation that has problems that go far beyond the gender neutrality issues first seen in the TNIV. 

WORLD | A fair analysis of the new NIV | Si Cochran | Dec. 14, 2013


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 21, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > I personally wouldn't prefer the ESV or the HCSB, but I would recommend these over the NIV 2011. I think the clarity you may be enjoying in the NIV may be likened to the following illustration which includes the use of two pictures.
> ...



I don't use the ESV and HCSB because they are translated from texts I have found to be questionable. I am not one who has researched all there is to know about the underlying textual issues of our bibles, and I don't have the time either, but I have read and heard enough to cause me take a side. Personally, I think the KJV and NKJV are safer bets on what are reliable translations because of their underlying manuscript tradition. All this is not to say that other translations are un-Christian no more than I would say that there is only one true Christian denomination. I believe we should choose our translations like we choose our churches—some have the appearance of being better than others. All a person can do is study to a reasonable conclusion and go forward. I have stared down the rabbit hole on this textual issue and I found I could not go all the way with pursuing it. There are many on this board who would choose ESV over KJV; and visa-versa. I used to read the ESV and I loved it. Then I wanted to know more. With knowledge comes conviction.


----------



## ReformedBaptist (Dec 21, 2013)

I WOULD recommend ESV for the same reason lol


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 21, 2013)

Well, there you go. That's what happens in these issues. People develop different convictions.


----------



## ElainaMor (Dec 23, 2013)

Thanks, I think I'll stick with the NKJV....it is what my pastor teaches from


----------



## Tirian (Dec 23, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> Thanks, I think I'll stick with the NKJV....it is what my pastor teaches from



I really love the NKJV, though I am glad to have my NIV84 handy during Luke - I think it has been more helpful in a couple of places


----------



## Edward (Dec 23, 2013)

ElainaMor said:


> Thanks, I think I'll stick with the NKJV



It's my favorite, although I generally use the ESV, since that is what the elders have selected for use at our church.


----------

