Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
One of the primary drawbacks to the ESV.
NIV 2011 Good or Bad
- Thread starter sevenzedek
- Start date
- Status
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
I very much enjoyed the Canadian Reformed Report you posted. It is very nuanced and if anything highlights how hard it can be to produce the "perfect" translation.
I want to just comment briefly on a statement made in the summary.
Leaving aside Rom 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:2 for a moment, the other verses cited are listed as a concern because they include women in a teaching role...
Philippians 1:14
14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.
2 Tim 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
But these verses in no way state where or to whom such teaching should take place. And we do know that women are to teach other women...
Titus 2:3-4
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Even granted that the immediate context of 2 Tim 2:2 "concerns the task of teachers of the church", surely it is important to have women clearly communicating such gospel truths to other women in the church, is it not? Shouldn't they be "qualified to teach others" in this regard? And I myself would go beyond this scope to include other laypeople at large in informal settings.
As for Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12, it just seems to me to be splitting hairs over words that "could mean this" or "may possibly mean that" but "we think it is best to translate it this way" and "Al Mohler doesn't approve", in other words, and again in my sole opinion, it doesn't present a great deal of concern for me. Anyone else is free to disagree.
I'm not trying to get away with anything, I was just answering the OP and giving my brief opinion about why I think the NIV is good, or least not so bad. Look, I don't think it's the best translation out there and it is sure to have it's areas of weakness. I've got a big husky NASB on my nightstand so I can memorize verses like Yoda and I've got a few ESVs lying around so I can read a Greek text trying to act like an Englishman who is worried other people don't believe he's British and is trying really hard to prove he really does like Oasis and eat fish n chips and beans on toast like the best of them. I have an HCSB which I really, really like, but it's just a bit too quirky for me.
I grew up on the NIV, I was saved reading it, and a lot of it is just engrained in me. So I welcome this revision and I think a lot of the criticism is ultimately unfounded.
I want to just comment briefly on a statement made in the summary.
Leaving aside Rom 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:2 for a moment, the other verses cited are listed as a concern because they include women in a teaching role...
Philippians 1:14
14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.
2 Tim 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
But these verses in no way state where or to whom such teaching should take place. And we do know that women are to teach other women...
Titus 2:3-4
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Even granted that the immediate context of 2 Tim 2:2 "concerns the task of teachers of the church", surely it is important to have women clearly communicating such gospel truths to other women in the church, is it not? Shouldn't they be "qualified to teach others" in this regard? And I myself would go beyond this scope to include other laypeople at large in informal settings.
As for Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12, it just seems to me to be splitting hairs over words that "could mean this" or "may possibly mean that" but "we think it is best to translate it this way" and "Al Mohler doesn't approve", in other words, and again in my sole opinion, it doesn't present a great deal of concern for me. Anyone else is free to disagree.
I'm not trying to get away with anything, I was just answering the OP and giving my brief opinion about why I think the NIV is good, or least not so bad. Look, I don't think it's the best translation out there and it is sure to have it's areas of weakness. I've got a big husky NASB on my nightstand so I can memorize verses like Yoda and I've got a few ESVs lying around so I can read a Greek text trying to act like an Englishman who is worried other people don't believe he's British and is trying really hard to prove he really does like Oasis and eat fish n chips and beans on toast like the best of them. I have an HCSB which I really, really like, but it's just a bit too quirky for me.
I grew up on the NIV, I was saved reading it, and a lot of it is just engrained in me. So I welcome this revision and I think a lot of the criticism is ultimately unfounded.
- Status
