Better Bibles Blog has moved. Read our last post, below, and then
click here if you are not redirected to our new location within 60 seconds.
Please Bookmark our new location and update blogrolls.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

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:

14 Comments:

At Mon Apr 04, 08:13:00 AM, Blogger david frank said...

Mark 14:40 "When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy." In English I believe one would normally say that someone's eyelids were heavy. If the eyelids feel heavy, I have a mental picture of them closing over the eyes, leading to sleep. But I cannot picture what is supposed to happen if one's eyes are heavy. Do they fall out of their sockets? To be fair, after I found this in the NIV, I found that there was a tradition for this wording in the KJV and the RSV. There are other English translations that avoid such an unnatural usage. I haven't had occasion to check the TNIV.

 
At Mon Apr 04, 09:12:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

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.

 
At Sat Apr 09, 05:42:00 AM, Blogger Jeremy Pierce said...

So the NIV is too formally equivalent in this case and should have gone with a more dynamic translation? Heh.

 
At Sun Apr 10, 05:16:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

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.

 
At Wed Apr 13, 03:18:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

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."

 
At Sat Apr 16, 12:59:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

Ps. 119:105 see comment under HCSB

 
At Sat Apr 16, 03:32:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

Matt. 21:5 "the Daughter of Zion"

See comment under NASB.

 
At Sat Apr 16, 04:25:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

Luke 24:25 "slow of heart to believe"

See comment under NET.

 
At Mon Apr 18, 03:32:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

Eph. 4:15 see comment under NET

 
At Wed Apr 20, 06:43:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

John 1:5 The NIV put "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." Such a translation assumes that English speakers commonly think of darkness as being a cognitive person. The footnote put "The darkness has not overcome." This seems to assume that English speakers think of darkness as a combatant. Neither translation imply that many persons are involved in this statement from John. Both have translated the "not" clause as a denial of a situation that did not happen. This is very strange to the Prologue. It is especially strange, since John has not mentioned hostility before this and he did not enlarge upon it.

 
At Mon Jul 18, 05:10:00 PM, Anonymous Joe Missionary said...

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."

 
At Sun Sep 11, 06:00:00 AM, Anonymous Mark Clifton said...

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?

 
At Fri May 26, 12:14:00 AM, Blogger Jay Carlson said...

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?

 
At Wed Jun 27, 07:49:00 AM, Blogger quilnigh said...

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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home