Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 05-29-2002, 09:20 AM

Repeatedly I have seen comments here indicating that the NIV is a particularly bad translation saturated with bias of an evangelical nature aimed at promoting inerrantism and other fundamentalist doctrines. I wonder if some proponent of this position could outline a specific case for it. In general I have found the NIV to be reasonably good and based on the best critical text. I have no particular allegiance to the NIV, but it seems to be presented as a foregone conclusion around here that it is biased more than other translations. I'd especially appreciate someone identifying specific examples of this so that I can compare the NIV to the NA27.

BibleBelted · 05-29-2002, 10:39 AM

deleted as unhelpful

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

05-29-2002, 11:34 AM

I've just checked five bibles including the RSV which says:

"And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and axes; and thus David did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem."

It looks like the KJV is wrong which is hardly surprising as it is grossly inaccurate. To attack the NIV, compare it to the RSV which is the scholars' bible of choice.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

tragic_pizza · 05-29-2002, 11:36 AM

I'd tend to agree with you, Belted, except that the NIV is not the only translation which modifies the language so. Among the few others I was able to research, the New Living Translation, the new King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and Young's Literal Translation all include language which says that David put them to work cutting, rather than cutting them apart.

Perhaps someone more conversant than I in ancient Hebrew can explain the diversity of opinion.

BibleBelted · 05-29-2002, 11:52 AM

Damn, I'm at work and don't have my copy of the Tanakh translated by Jewish scholars, but IIRC, it uses the words "hacked with saws" or something similar.

Regardless, does it seem likely that a heartless dirtbag like David would put "all" the Ammonites to work making bricks?

What would he do with all these bricks anyway?

Don't want to hijack this thread over a single passage, but I would like to get to the bottom of this.

I will try to get back to you on the Tanakh translation.

BibleBelted · 05-29-2002, 12:14 PM

deleted as unhelpful

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

CX · 05-29-2002, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BibleBelted:
<strong>Here's one of my favorite examples of how the NIV softens some of the hideous behavior of a "man after gawd's own heart" (as if gawd had one)

1 Chronicles 20:3

I have a fairly recent English translation of the Tanakh, also. It agrees almost entirely with the KJV.

The NIV changes genocide to "workfare." Hardly an honest translation.</strong>

Actually I'm far more interested in the translation of the NT. I have little or no interest in OT scholarship. Thanks anyway though.

BibleBelted · 05-29-2002, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:

Actually I'm far more interested in the translation of the NT. I have little or no interest in OT scholarship. Thanks anyway though.

My apologies. But now I'm curious about this OT passage. I'll re-state the question in a new thread.

BB

Polycarp · 05-29-2002, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
Repeatedly I have seen comments here indicating that the NIV is a particularly bad translation saturated with bias of an evangelical nature aimed at promoting inerrantism and other fundamentalist doctrines. I wonder if some proponent of this position could outline a specific case for it. In general I have found the NIV to be reasonably good and based on the best critical text. I have no particular allegiance to the NIV, but it seems to be presented as a foregone conclusion around here that it is biased more than other translations. I'd especially appreciate someone identifying specific examples of this so that I can compare the NIV to the NA27.

I don't have much to contribute in the way of demonstrating an "inerrant" or "fundamentalist" bias. However, I think the NIV is guilty in some places of using "theological filler" material. By this, I'm referring to places in the Greek text where the meaning is ambiguous. Rather than leave it ambiguous in English, the NIV translators added their interpretation to the translation. I wouldn't say the NIV is a horrible translation, but it's not one of my favorites. I could list some of these examples if you�re interested, but the NIV never claims to be a literal translation.

My Greek professor always jokingly referred to it as the "New Inaccurate Version�, which was even funnier because two of the other profs (1 OT & 1 NT) at my school were on the NIV translation committee. As a matter of fact, a few weeks ago the NT prof gave a lecture on the making of the NIV, complete with stories of some of their rather heated debates. It was quite interesting.

The NIV has a website that addresses many of the criticisms directed against it. In addition, they discuss their philosophy of translating. There�s a lot of good stuff there. <a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/" target="_blank">http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/</a>

I haven't been around this place in ages. It's good to see you again. How've you been?

Vorkosigan · 05-30-2002, 12:32 AM

Hi Polycarp! Good to see you back here.

We just had a discussion of NIV errors a couple of weeks ago, CX. There are some in<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000268&p=1" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/versions.html" target="_blank">Paul Tobin's page</a> has a page on the NIV problems and how they smooth over problems for the inerrantist.

No less an authority than Bruce Metzger seems to have taken the NIV translators to task for rewriting the Bible; Paul Tobin cites him.

Vorkosigan

05-29-2002, 09:20 AM	#1
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	What's wrong with the NIV? Repeatedly I have seen comments here indicating that the NIV is a particularly bad translation saturated with bias of an evangelical nature aimed at promoting inerrantism and other fundamentalist doctrines. I wonder if some proponent of this position could outline a specific case for it. In general I have found the NIV to be reasonably good and based on the best critical text. I have no particular allegiance to the NIV, but it seems to be presented as a foregone conclusion around here that it is biased more than other translations. I'd especially appreciate someone identifying specific examples of this so that I can compare the NIV to the NA27.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2002, 10:39 AM	#2
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	deleted as unhelpful [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

05-29-2002, 11:34 AM	#3
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	I've just checked five bibles including the RSV which says: "And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and axes; and thus David did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." It looks like the KJV is wrong which is hardly surprising as it is grossly inaccurate. To attack the NIV, compare it to the RSV which is the scholars' bible of choice. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

05-29-2002, 11:36 AM	#4
tragic_pizza Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 108	I'd tend to agree with you, Belted, except that the NIV is not the only translation which modifies the language so. Among the few others I was able to research, the New Living Translation, the new King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and Young's Literal Translation all include language which says that David put them to work cutting, rather than cutting them apart. Perhaps someone more conversant than I in ancient Hebrew can explain the diversity of opinion.

05-29-2002, 11:52 AM	#5
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	Damn, I'm at work and don't have my copy of the Tanakh translated by Jewish scholars, but IIRC, it uses the words "hacked with saws" or something similar. Regardless, does it seem likely that a heartless dirtbag like David would put "all" the Ammonites to work making bricks? What would he do with all these bricks anyway? Don't want to hijack this thread over a single passage, but I would like to get to the bottom of this. I will try to get back to you on the Tanakh translation.

05-29-2002, 12:14 PM	#6
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	deleted as unhelpful [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

05-30-2002, 12:32 AM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Hi Polycarp! Good to see you back here. We just had a discussion of NIV errors a couple of weeks ago, CX. There are some in<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000268&p=1" target="_blank">this thread</a>. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/versions.html" target="_blank">Paul Tobin's page</a> has a page on the NIV problems and how they smooth over problems for the inerrantist. No less an authority than Bruce Metzger seems to have taken the NIV translators to task for rewriting the Bible; Paul Tobin cites him. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.