NIV (New International Version)
from the NIV website:
"The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation."
Category: niv
"The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation."
Category: niv
posted by Wayne Leman at 8:59 AM
10 Comments:
Good observation, David. I would consider "their eyes were heavy" to be a collocational clash in English. I don't think the English versions which translate like this have used a wording which accurately communicates to English speakers the meaning of the original Greek.
So the NIV is too formally equivalent in this case and should have gone with a more dynamic translation? Heh.
Is. 50:1 "Where is your mother's divorce certificate with which I sent her away?"
Seems inaccurate to me: "sent her away" is not an accurate English wording to communicate the original Hebrew (figurative) meaning of what is done when divorcing someone.
Suggested revision: "get rid of her" or, simply, "divorce her"
The NIV does accurately translate the non-literal meaning of the Greek word apolusai as 'divorce' in Matt. 1:19, even though this Greek word has the same literal meaning as that of the Hebrew word in Is. 50:1, namely, 'to send (someone) away.
The TNIV has the same wordings as the NIV in Is. 50:1 and Matt. 1:19.
Several days later: I have done a search on Google for "heavy eyes" and found that some people do speaking of having "heavy eyes," rather than "heavy eyelids." Perhaps this is a kind of metonymic extension from "heavy eyelids" to "heavy eyes."
Matt. 21:5 "the Daughter of Zion"
See comment under NASB.
Eph. 4:15 see comment under NET
Colossians 1:24: "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."
It seems to me that a good contemporary translation shouldn't use phrases that absolutely no one uses in this contemporary society. Granted, persecution is not an ordinary discussion topic, but it still seems that this could be clearer.
I've checked most of the other English versions, and these two seem to be the most understandable. Are they the most accurate? Well, I'm no Greek scholar, so I'll leave that to the pros:
Amplified says "I am making up whatever is still lacking and remains to be completed [on our part] of Christ's afflictions..."
The New Life Version says "In my own body I am doing my share of what has to be done to make Christ's sufferings complete."
Heb. 6:1 "repentance from acts that lead to death...". Other translations read "repentance from dead works." What sort of works "lead to death?" (Hint: Romans 6:23)
"Dead works" do not "lead to death" - they simply do not contain life. In the context of Hebrews, "dead works" are the "deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:20).
The NIV virtually states that the first 'elementary teaching' is repentance from sin. This appears to be a glaring mistranslation What have I overlooked?
Isaiah 48:16 "'Draw near to me, hear this: since the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.' And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit."
In the KJV/NKJV, the quotations are extended to the end of the verse, lending itself as evidence for Trinity. Why does the NIV, along with several other translations, cut the quotation marks short?
Thank you for this blog/site. I am surprised how few comments have been posted on NIV, but maybe the real action is at the TNIV site. Mr Carlson has a post on May 26, and I will assume that that is in 2007, though no one has responded. I keep my first 1978 NIV because it has a typo in Psalms, to remind me that only the Lord Jesus Christ is the living Word, infallible. Like Mr Carlson, I have found an awkward statement in Isaiah, which the NIV committee has responded to ... when asked, explaining, but not relieving the tension of reading it their way. Though the NIV is highly readable, I would like to begin a discussion on the most glaring mistranslation. Is this the proper forum for doctrinal examination of the text?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home