Satan and 1 Cor 5:5 poor translation (NIV?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

PointingToChrist

Puritan Board Freshman
Someone posted this in another thread about poor translations:

"Quote Originally Posted by JohnGill View Post
It's a tie betwixt the NIV & the RSV. Whether its a denial of the virgin birth in the RSV or Satan being a more effective savior in the NIV, both are awful. I picked them up for a class I was teaching on logic. Lot's of great examples of bad logic in these two. By the time class was over we had proven that squares are circles. We were dealing with the consequences of one inconsistency in your worldview foundation."

I couldn't find anything on this. Can someone explain? I quickly compared the ESV and NIV and see little difference:
NIV: hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
ESV: you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
 
I'm not saying the NIV is the best or better translation, but there are occasions when it is better than the KJV.

E.g.

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4, KJV)

After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.(Acts 12:4, NIV)

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Rom 8:16, NIV)

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.(Rom 8:16, NIV)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13, KJV)

while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,(Titus 2:13, NIV)
 
I'm not saying the NIV is the best or better translation, but there are occasions when it is better than the KJV.

E.g.


And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4, KJV)

After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.(Acts 12:4, NIV)
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Rom 8:16, NIV)

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.(Rom 8:16, NIV)
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13, KJV)

while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,(Titus 2:13, NIV)

For Act 12:4 it's good to look at Acts 12:3 first

Acts 12:3-4
King James Version (KJV)

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The passover is before the days of unleavened bread not after. Plus Tyndale who invented the english translation "passover" translates it "easter" in his translation

I don't see how Romans 8:16 and Titus 2:13 are better translations in the NIV, it seems pretty equivalent to me.
 
I don't see how Romans 8:16 and Titus 2:13 are better translations in the NIV, it seems pretty equivalent to me.

The Jews didn't celebrate Easter, nor is it taught in Scripture.

The AV talks about the Holy Spirit as "itself" rather than "Himself" (Rom 8:16), the Holy Spirit being a person, and the NIV has a clear teaching on Christ being God at Titus 2:13.
 
The Jews didn't celebrate Easter, nor is it taught in Scripture.

Agreed, but this has nothing to do with my comment, I never said Jews celebrated "Easter".

For Romans 8:16, I'm not a greek scholar but I thought that the greek word for spirit "pneuma" was neuter, If this is true the AV has it right.

I don't see how the AV is less clear about Christ being God. Christ being "our" Savior does not deny he is "the" great God.
 
Someone posted this in another thread about poor translations:

"Quote Originally Posted by JohnGill View Post
It's a tie betwixt the NIV & the RSV. Whether its a denial of the virgin birth in the RSV or Satan being a more effective savior in the NIV, both are awful. I picked them up for a class I was teaching on logic. Lot's of great examples of bad logic in these two. By the time class was over we had proven that squares are circles. We were dealing with the consequences of one inconsistency in your worldview foundation."

I couldn't find anything on this. Can someone explain? I quickly compared the ESV and NIV and see little difference:
NIV: hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
ESV: you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.


That's because you've misquoted the NIV. 1 Cor 5:5 in the NIV reads, "hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." The logical ramifications of the NIV verse are as follow:


  1. Satan can destroy my sinful nature
  2. If I sin grossly I will be turned over to Satan
  3. Without a sinful nature I will be incapable of sinning
  4. Sinning grossly will cause Satan to destroy my sinful nature thereby making me incapable of sinning.
  5. Here's to sinning grossly

The NIV by rendering "flesh" as sinful nature here and in other verses teaches something contrary to scripture. Even worse, in teaching that flesh is inherently sinful, it teaches Jesus, who was tempted in all manners like as we were, was not without sin. That destroys Christianity.

Commentary by John Gill from on 1 Cor 5:5:

for the destruction of the flesh; that is, that his body might be shook, buffeted, afflicted, and tortured in a terrible manner; that by this means he might be brought to a sense of his sin, to repentance for it, and make an humble acknowledgment of it:

For fans of the NIV, here is an article written by a fan of the NIV dealing with the issue in 1 Cor 5:5 and other such verses: Do NIV Readers Have a Sinful Nature? « Escape to Reality

The BibleGateway site has the updated version of the NIV which now has "flesh", yet still has this footnote: 1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit."

Heresies that take this and similar views are Docetism, Marcionism, & Gnosticism.

(Part dealing with Romans 8:26 et al moved here.)
 
Last edited:
Part of the confusion here is probably due to the fact that the original NIV (1973) reads "flesh", while later editions (1984 on) were changed to "sinful nature".
 
Part of the confusion here is probably due to the fact that the original NIV (1973) reads "flesh", while later editions (1984 on) were changed to "sinful nature".

I believe the 2011 version also reads "flesh" so perhaps this has been corrected.
 
Part of the confusion here is probably due to the fact that the original NIV (1973) reads "flesh", while later editions (1984 on) were changed to "sinful nature".

I believe the 2011 version also reads "flesh" so perhaps this has been corrected.

Yes, but the footnote stating it means "sinful nature" is kept. "Sinful nature" is kept in Rom 7:18, 25. I pointed out 1 Cor 5:5 because in the logic class I taught at church it afforded us the most "fun". By fun, I mean we were able to destroy a great many foundational doctrines and bring in old heresies. The point of the class, which they all got, was the danger of logical inconsistencies in the foundation of your worldview. We turned a critical eye to all the popular translations to see which afforded us a non-contradictory worldview foundation. We found 2. Any time we allowed orthodox theology to color our understanding of a badly rendered verse someone would cry out, "BIAS!" This forced us to look at what the text actually said versus what we thought it said. The practice also helped me in becoming a Calvinist and is the reason why I am no longer a dispensationalist or pre-tribber.
 
When this topic first jumped off, in the other thread, I checked on the AV translation;

1 Corinthians 5:5, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I think the criticism over the NIV translation is unfounded. your mileage may vary.
 
Part of the confusion here is probably due to the fact that the original NIV (1973) reads "flesh", while later editions (1984 on) were changed to "sinful nature".

I believe the 2011 version also reads "flesh" so perhaps this has been corrected.

Yes, but the footnote stating it means "sinful nature" is kept. "Sinful nature" is kept in Rom 7:18, 25. I pointed out 1 Cor 5:5 because in the logic class I taught at church it afforded us the most "fun". By fun, I mean we were able to destroy a great many foundational doctrines and bring in old heresies. The point of the class, which they all got, was the danger of logical inconsistencies in the foundation of your worldview. We turned a critical eye to all the popular translations to see which afforded us a non-contradictory worldview foundation. We found 2. Any time we allowed orthodox theology to color our understanding of a badly rendered verse someone would cry out, "BIAS!" This forced us to look at what the text actually said versus what we thought it said. The practice also helped me in becoming a Calvinist and is the reason why I am no longer a dispensationalist or pre-tribber.

Believe me, I am not a big fan of the Nearly Inspired Version either, but at least they did make an effort to correct this horrible translation, even if they have stubbornly kept the footnote.
 
Actually, I am not sure they really made up their minds on this issue. Notice footnotes 1 & 2 (directly after "flesh") as they appeared in my copy. Maybe it is in this way they can make everyone happy. If you're a heretic, just pick footnote 1. If you're orthodox, just pick footnote 2. (Option 3? Pick footnote 2 and read another version) While this not sufficient cause for someone's faith in God to waiver, it would, at the very least, seem sufficient enough to make one's confidence in the NIV waiver.

1 Corinthians 5:5
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh12, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

FOOTNOTE 1: In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit.

FOOTNOTE 2: Or of his body

Part of the confusion here is probably due to the fact that the original NIV (1973) reads "flesh", while later editions (1984 on) were changed to "sinful nature".

I believe the 2011 version also reads "flesh" so perhaps this has been corrected.

Yes, but the footnote stating it means "sinful nature" is kept. "Sinful nature" is kept in Rom 7:18, 25. I pointed out 1 Cor 5:5 because in the logic class I taught at church it afforded us the most "fun". By fun, I mean we were able to destroy a great many foundational doctrines and bring in old heresies. The point of the class, which they all got, was the danger of logical inconsistencies in the foundation of your worldview. We turned a critical eye to all the popular translations to see which afforded us a non-contradictory worldview foundation. We found 2. Any time we allowed orthodox theology to color our understanding of a badly rendered verse someone would cry out, "BIAS!" This forced us to look at what the text actually said versus what we thought it said. The practice also helped me in becoming a Calvinist and is the reason why I am no longer a dispensationalist or pre-tribber.

Believe me, I am not a big fan of the Nearly Inspired Version either, but at least they did make an effort to correct this horrible translation, even if they have stubbornly kept the footnote.
 
Chris, I truly appreciate you taking all the time and effort to point this NIV mistranslation out to all of us. The truth above all else! Yay! Let us not support any heresies with a mistranslation. Since I'm mainly an NIV user, I have crossed out my 1984 NIV's "sinful nature" and written in "flesh" and added 2 sticky notes explaining the logical conclusions of such a mistranslation and the heresies that would use it. THANK YOU! :applause:
 
Chris, I truly appreciate you taking all the time and effort to point this NIV mistranslation out to all of us. The truth above all else! Yay! Let us not support any heresies with a mistranslation. Since I'm mainly an NIV user, I have crossed out my 1984 NIV's "sinful nature" and written in "flesh" and added 2 sticky notes explaining the logical conclusions of such a mistranslation and the heresies that would use it. THANK YOU! :applause:

You could always get a Geneva Bible or a Cambridge Ed. Authorized Bible. But if you get a Cambridge, make sure it has the inside binding attachments. This way you can throw your Bible across the room at an heretic without the innards falling out. :lol: Or you know, just keep the innards in the covers.

Some may recommend the new RSV, but with either the Geneva or AV you won't have any worries. Plus reading them does help in understanding the writings of the Puritans. Well, that and Latin. If you want to know why some of their English translations look so convoluted and stiff, one word: Latin. Did you know all of Turretin's works are online for FREE?!? Of course they're in Latin. Which proves my point.
 
Chris, I truly appreciate you taking all the time and effort to point this NIV mistranslation out to all of us. The truth above all else! Yay! Let us not support any heresies with a mistranslation. Since I'm mainly an NIV user, I have crossed out my 1984 NIV's "sinful nature" and written in "flesh" and added 2 sticky notes explaining the logical conclusions of such a mistranslation and the heresies that would use it. THANK YOU! :applause:

You could always get a Geneva Bible or a Cambridge Ed. Authorized Bible. But if you get a Cambridge, make sure it has the inside binding attachments. This way you can throw your Bible across the room at an heretic without the innards falling out. :lol: Or you know, just keep the innards in the covers.

Some may recommend the new RSV, but with either the Geneva or AV you won't have any worries. Plus reading them does help in understanding the writings of the Puritans. Well, that and Latin. If you want to know why some of their English translations look so convoluted and stiff, one word: Latin. Did you know all of Turretin's works are online for FREE?!? Of course they're in Latin. Which proves my point.

I DO have a Geneva Bible!!! :banana: I love it! But I can't use it to teach baby Christians from. :p haha... I'll throw my thick hardcover millennium Edition of 1611 KJV Bible at the heretics!

MAN... you had me going! I read "Do you know all of Turretin's works are online for FREE?" And I leaped out of my seat... BUT... they're in Latin. And I sat back down. :p
 
I DO have a Geneva Bible!!! :banana: I love it! But I can't use it to teach baby Christians from. :p haha... I'll throw my thick hardcover millennium Edition of 1611 KJV Bible at the heretics!

MAN... you had me going! I read "Do you know all of Turretin's works are online for FREE?" And I leaped out of my seat... BUT... they're in Latin. And I sat back down. :p

Sure you can. I've used the AV to do it from. And I was teaching 1st - 5th graders.

Yeah. That's how I felt when I found it online. Then I decided it was time to begin learning Latin. But Turretin's chapter on the Scriptures is available online in PDF format for free. I could've just posted the link: Turretin's Institutes At first you think, oh how quaint it's just that old script. Then the horror settles in and you realize what it really is, LATIN! I have to say that after beginning Latin I now have a better grasp of English grammar and parts of speech. Took forever to figure out what was the indirect and direct object. In Latin you know just by looking.
 
I DO have a Geneva Bible!!! :banana: I love it! But I can't use it to teach baby Christians from. :p haha... I'll throw my thick hardcover millennium Edition of 1611 KJV Bible at the heretics!

MAN... you had me going! I read "Do you know all of Turretin's works are online for FREE?" And I leaped out of my seat... BUT... they're in Latin. And I sat back down. :p

Sure you can. I've used the AV to do it from. And I was teaching 1st - 5th graders.

Yeah. That's how I felt when I found it online. Then I decided it was time to begin learning Latin. But Turretin's chapter on the Scriptures is available online in PDF format for free. I could've just posted the link: Turretin's Institutes At first you think, oh how quaint it's just that old script. Then the horror settles in and you realize what it really is, LATIN! I have to say that after beginning Latin I now have a better grasp of English grammar and parts of speech. Took forever to figure out what was the indirect and direct object. In Latin you know just by looking.

I better clarify. IF I were teaching children, I could totally use my Geneva Bible! But since I'm teaching adults, they're a bit more difficult to please!!! haha... And a lot more stuck in their ways!

Thanks for the link. I'll tuck it away for when I got to Bible college and learn Latin :D
 
That's because you've misquoted the NIV. 1 Cor 5:5 in the NIV reads, "hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." The logical ramifications of the NIV verse are as follow:


Satan can destroy my sinful nature
If I sin grossly I will be turned over to Satan
Without a sinful nature I will be incapable of sinning
Sinning grossly will cause Satan to destroy my sinful nature thereby making me incapable of sinning.
Here's to sinning grossly

The NIV by rendering "flesh" as sinful nature here and in other verses teaches something contrary to scripture. Even worse, in teaching that flesh is inherently sinful, it teaches Jesus, who was tempted in all manners like as we were, was not without sin. That destroys Christianity.

Chris, these things do not follow at all. Take the AV rendition, apply your same method, and see what you come up with.

Satan can destroy my flesh.
The destruction of my flesh results in the salvation of my spirit.
Satan can save my spirit.
Here's to the destruction of the flesh.

I disagree with the rendering "sinful nature", but it's simply not acceptable to say that the NIV teaches that Satan is "a more effective savior". The fact that God can use Satan, and our delivering over to Satan, in ultimate furtherance of our salvation (as a messenger of Satan was profitable even to Paul) does not give Satan some sort of superior efficacy. The AV and NIV renderings both have to be read in the context of the rest of what is known from Scripture; when either one is read in that way, without hostile atomization, your conclusions don't come into it at all.

You are importing these ideas onto the NIV, including the idea that it teaches that flesh is inherently sinful. If that is taught somewhere in the NIV it does not emerge from the admittedly infelicitous rendering of this verse. The fact is that in the NT "flesh" is not always exactly equivalent to "material body," even if there is (almost) invariably a connection to the body in the manner of speech.
 
That's because you've misquoted the NIV. 1 Cor 5:5 in the NIV reads, "hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." The logical ramifications of the NIV verse are as follow:


Satan can destroy my sinful nature
If I sin grossly I will be turned over to Satan
Without a sinful nature I will be incapable of sinning
Sinning grossly will cause Satan to destroy my sinful nature thereby making me incapable of sinning.
Here's to sinning grossly

The NIV by rendering "flesh" as sinful nature here and in other verses teaches something contrary to scripture. Even worse, in teaching that flesh is inherently sinful, it teaches Jesus, who was tempted in all manners like as we were, was not without sin. That destroys Christianity.

Chris, these things do not follow at all. Take the AV rendition, apply your same method, and see what you come up with.

Satan can destroy my flesh.
The destruction of my flesh results in the salvation of my spirit.
Satan can save my spirit.
Here's to the destruction of the flesh.

I disagree with the rendering "sinful nature", but it's simply not acceptable to say that the NIV teaches that Satan is "a more effective savior". The fact that God can use Satan, and our delivering over to Satan, in ultimate furtherance of our salvation (as a messenger of Satan was profitable even to Paul) does not give Satan some sort of superior efficacy. The AV and NIV renderings both have to be read in the context of the rest of what is known from Scripture; when either one is read in that way, without hostile atomization, your conclusions don't come into it at all.

You are importing these ideas onto the NIV, including the idea that it teaches that flesh is inherently sinful. If that is taught somewhere in the NIV it does not emerge from the admittedly infelicitous rendering of this verse. The fact is that in the NT "flesh" is not always exactly equivalent to "material body," even if there is (almost) invariably a connection to the body in the manner of speech.

Your rephrasing of my argument only works if you equate flesh to sinful nature. With the AV rendering, the destruction of the flesh is done to drive the person to repentance. It's chastisement for sin. With the NIV rendering, why repent at all if when in sinning Satan will destroy my sinful nature? Having my sinful nature destroyed isn't chastisement. It's a good thing. The NIV in translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" in 1Cor5:5 and elsewhere, does teach that flesh is inherently sinful and teaches the two-nature view.

This has been a complaint for years about the NIV by scholars.
 
Focus your attention on just 1 Corinthians 5:5 in the AV. Where is repentance? It is not mentioned. You are bringing it in - you are filling out what the verse actually says with what you believe to be applicable on the basis of other texts. What is there to prevent a reader of the NIV from filling in the meaning with reference to other texts as well? A reader who did not focus atomistically on the one verse would be quite unlikely to reach any of the conclusions you presented. I am sure you can do better in your criticism than that; instead of assuming that all are really agreed on your paradigm and criticizing what would be true of someone who presented a given rendering or teaching if they were operating on your paradigm, you can first appreciate the whole paradigm and then critique it.

For instance, another of your comments depends on equivocation. If sarx means "sinful nature" then translating it as "sinful nature" does not teach that material bodies are intrinsically evil. And so it is quite possible for someone to be (wrongly) convinced that sarx does mean "sinful nature" without therefore concluding that material bodies are intrinsically evil. That only happens if the person translating "sinful nature" really knows that sarx means flesh in the sense of material body.
 
The NIV in translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" in 1Cor5:5 and elsewhere, does teach that flesh is inherently sinful and teaches the two-nature view.

I will grant that the rendering, "sinful nature," explicitly teaches the two-nature view and ought to be rejected on that account. This, perhaps, should be the focus of criticism. But I think it is impossible to derive the idea of the inherent sinfulness of the material body from the word. In modern biblical studies, it has been the desire to repudiate that view which has led to the adoption of terms other than "flesh."

I also cannot see your point about making "Satan" a saviour. A change of the object does not alter the function of Satan in the process. The idea is that his dominion is overruled and used for good in either case. I will grant, though, that the change from "flesh" to "sinful nature" alters the scope of his dominion from the temporal to the moral sphere. This would indicate that "Satan" is being used for the mortification of sin, which is an idea that cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.
 
The NIV in translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" in 1Cor5:5 and elsewhere, does teach that flesh is inherently sinful and teaches the two-nature view.

I will grant that the rendering, "sinful nature," explicitly teaches the two-nature view and ought to be rejected on that account. This, perhaps, should be the focus of criticism. But I think it is impossible to derive the idea of the inherent sinfulness of the material body from the word. In modern biblical studies, it has been the desire to repudiate that view which has led to the adoption of terms other than "flesh."

I also cannot see your point about making "Satan" a saviour. A change of the object does not alter the function of Satan in the process. The idea is that his dominion is overruled and used for good in either case. I will grant, though, that the change from "flesh" to "sinful nature" alters the scope of his dominion from the temporal to the moral sphere. This would indicate that "Satan" is being used for the mortification of sin, which is an idea that cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

I was trying to point out that if you change it from flesh to sinful nature, it has the affect of making Satan more effective against sin than Christ. Satan ends up saving one from the curse of sin. The implication is an absurdity. I think I said rather poorly what you have said in the underlined passage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top