|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: NIV - too biased in its translation?
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Couple of things came up elsewhere on another board whilst discussing Genesis.
Firstly, the NIV, uniquely as far as I know, uses the pluperfect in Genesis 2:19:
quote:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Secondly, in the same chapter (vv 16-17) the NIV states:
quote:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die
. Both the KVJ and Young's Literal Translation specify God saying "the day you eat it you shall die"
What was significant is that both these subtle changes were used by a fundamentalist debator (who was arguing for a literalist interpretation) to get out of the obvious problems of, in the first case, the contradictory order of creation in the two creation stories of Gen 1 and Gen 2, and in the second case, the fact that Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.
So, my question is, did the NIV translators purposely work from an assumption that scripture was innerant and therefore translate in such a way as to minimise problems of this kind?
[ 30. March 2004, 12:28: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I like the NIV and have used it for many years. I also use the New Living Translation (which is not the same as the Living Bible paraphrase). Both versions prioritize translation of ideas, rather than exact wording. Both are well liked in US evangelical protestant circles (as opposed to fundamentalist circles, where they are usually rejected as being too un-literal).
My most commonly used bible is a New American Standard Bible. That translation prioritizes literal translation, but with necessary adjustments to match current American English style and idiom. Unlike the KJV, it incorporates current textual research. Unlike Young's, it is quite readable. BTW, for Gen 2:17 my NASB reads, "...for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Anyone who wishes to argue from the bible while restricting himself to one version is deluding himself. If that person is unaware of the priorities and biases of his chosen version, then he is doubly deluded.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
The NIV translators were, I thought, mostly evangelical. Whether that means they were inerrantists... well, you'd have to ask them.
Now show me an unbiased translation.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Anyone who wishes to argue from the bible while restricting himself to one version is deluding himself. If that person is unaware of the priorities and biases of his chosen version, then he is doubly deluded.
I think that is absolutely spot on. All translations have some "bias" - based on the theological position of the translators, which is why any debates on passages must appreciate the various translations available.
I also think that assuming that the use of particular translations always reflect the intentions of the translators is mistaken. I think ( in this case ) that is reading too much back. They may have been mistaken in that translation, but not necessarily malicious.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
The preface to the NIV has the following:
quote:
In working towards these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form.
Whether, of course, that led them to attempt to minimise 'contradictions' is another matter....
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The preface to the NIV has the following:
quote:
In working towards these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form.
Whether, of course, that led them to attempt to minimise 'contradictions' is another matter....
Something made them shy away from the word "day"...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
The translators are a bunch of sexists though. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) The word used to describe Phoebe, Timothy etc is “deacon<something Greek>” and that usually gets translated as “Minister” or “Leader”. Except, of course, when it is applied to Phoebe. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Then it gets translated as “Helper”. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
...that usually gets translated as “Minister” or “Leader”. Except, of course, when it is applied to Phoebe. Then it gets translated as “Helper”.
That's cause you can't be a "Leader" if you aren't properly equipped to point the way!
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
That's cause you can't be a "Leader" if you aren't properly equipped to point the way!
What? with a penis?
That's positively obscene. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
What? with a penis?
*Psst! Hey Wood... that was the joke. Sorry you missed it. I should have been more pointed, erm... I should have made the joke bigger, umm... I mean, it wasn't outstanding... oh hell.*
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
Tis okay, we all got the joke! Yes, even Wood.
Something that I am often surprised by is the difference between the Good News Bible, and everything else.
I am quite happy with it being a Bible written with a very limted vocabulary, etc. But am unhappy with its use as a 'pew Bible' in churches.
I am happier with the NIV than the Good News. A translation that I really like is The Unvarnished New Testament, byt Andy Gaus. He writes from the idea of just treating the text as any other text that needs to be translated.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The NIV is shunned by the Orthodox primarily, I believe, because of the way they treat the word "tradition."
Everywhere (in the NT) something bad is said about tradition, e.g. Jesus saying "you have elevated the traditions of men above the word of God", it is translated "tradition."
But everywhere something good is said about it (e.g. hold fast to the traditions you received) it is translated "teaching" or "teachings."
But in Greek it's the same word in both places.
Just a little bias against Tradition? Sure looks that way to this observer.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But in Greek it's the same word in both places.
This can happen quite legitimately in a translation. Words are not transliterated, but are translated due to context. (I am not saying that this is the case with "tradition" in the NIV.
Have a look at almost any word in a dictionary, and you can get 3 or 4 different meanings for it. Then go to a thesaurus and find its synonyms. Even from a very simple word you can get a whole host of words being thrown up, all with slightly different shades of meaning.
Then there is the task of matching up the shade of meaning with the corresponding shade of meaning in the other language. And of course the shades change over time.
I am utterly crap at translation. If I need to have something in Welsh and English then I write two letters, one while thinking in Welsh, and one when thinking in English. They approximate translations, but I know that they are far from it.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unkl Davy
Shipmate
# 2777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
So, my question is, did the NIV translators purposely work from an assumption that scripture was innerant and therefore translate in such a way as to minimise problems of this kind?
Ask them. How should anyone HERE know? Anything postulated here (pro or con) is pure conjecture.
As for a translation issue ... it seems like a weak problem to me.
--------------------
"Lately, everything has been coming my way ... I think I'm in the wrong lane."
Posts: 216 | From: Silicon Valley | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Thank you Mousethief. One more reason to dislike the NIV!!
IMHO there are others:
quote:
2 Timothy 2 from the NIV:
Instructions on Worship <snip>
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
There is nothing, zilch, zero in the text to suggest that the above has anything to do with "worship" yet including it under such a subheading is an attempt to strengthen the case against women in leadership and preaching.
They do a similar thing in Ephesians 5:
quote:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord
This makes it sound like the mutual submission and the wives submitting to husbands are two separate things. In fact, wives submitting to husbands is just one aspect of mutual submission in the church, as would be made clearer were the two kept together.
Sean, who is off to grind his axes ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iain67
Apprentice
# 1583
|
Posted
Karl asked:
So, my question is, did the NIV translators purposely work from an assumption that scripture was innerant and therefore translate in such a way as to minimise problems of this kind?
I know one of the people involved in NIV translation personally (and have read the work of others). For 100% certain, not all the translators believe in inerrancy / are fundamentalists, and the person I know personally is very dismissive of such nonsense. From those whose work I have read, they certainly tend to come from a conservative and evangelical background, but this covers a very wide range of attitudes to scripture and inspiration - I'm sure many people would be very surprised at the range of attitudes!
Translation is very difficult! It is always inexact, and involves lots of judgement calls; inevitably, there are many ways in which your presuppositions will affect your translating.
Overall, I think the NIV does a pretty good job at what it sets out to do.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But in Greek it's the same word in both places.
This can happen quite legitimately in a translation. Words are not transliterated, but are translated due to context. (I am not saying that this is the case with "tradition" in the NIV.
Have a look at almost any word in a dictionary, and you can get 3 or 4 different meanings for it. Then go to a thesaurus and find its synonyms. Even from a very simple word you can get a whole host of words being thrown up, all with slightly different shades of meaning.
Then there is the task of matching up the shade of meaning with the corresponding shade of meaning in the other language. And of course the shades change over time.
I am utterly crap at translation. If I need to have something in Welsh and English then I write two letters, one while thinking in Welsh, and one when thinking in English. They approximate translations, but I know that they are far from it.
bb
bb, you are able to think in Welsh and in English. You know, not only the languages, but also the cultures. Given that state of knowledge, there is no problem with your translating freely.
When people translate the Bible, though, they cannot think in the ancient language, and their knowledge of the culture is very incomplete. Under these circumstances the translators need to be extremely careful.
I think that translators should try to use the same English word for a given Hebrew or Greek word wherever it appears as long as it makes sense.
I agree with Mousethief that the translators are out of line in translating the same Greek word as 'tradition' or 'teachings'
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I'm not a fan of the NIV myself. In its attempt to make the Bible readable to the average guy, it takes some liberties with the text. It's a great paraphrase, but a weak translation.
I read an interview in Christianity Today with the man who is a key influence on the NIV. (Can't remember his name, nor the issue. Sorry. It was in 2002.) His attitude toward those who value holding as much as possible to the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew was alarming. I never liked the NIV. When I read the interview, I found out why. I highly recommend the interview for those interested in the NIV. (If I find the issue, I will post it here.)
I'm a NASB man myself, even though it's a harder read than the NIV. I also like the NKJ (which is very readable). But few people use it, unfortunately.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
In short, Yes. (Reply to OP). The agenda of the translation board comes through loud and clear.
A key issue for me is the way they translate the Greek word for "flesh" in the NT. Whenever St Paul uses the word flesh in a negative sense, the NIV translators replace it with "sinful nature".
There are good arguments for and against translating St Paul in this way, but I think the NIV is alone in making this substitution.
(If we leave it as "flesh" we remind ourselves that St Paul was steeped in Hellenistic culture as well as Jewish and Roman cultures, and so had many contradictary, confused and confusing notions. I don't think he believes that flesh itself is evil, but he comes close to it. Where would that leave his theology of the incarnation? And should this be another thread?)
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I'd noticed the pluperfect in Genesis 2 myself. An evangelical justified it on the grounds that Hebrew has fewer tenses than English, but I found that looking through the Adam and Eve story the pluperfect made less sense in that context (although it undid the contradiction between it and Genesis 1). Although unfortunately I haven't the ability to go back to the original.
As to the comments about flesh and tradition, while I agree with BB that it is impossible on every occasion to translate the same word to the same word, it does seem that in these cases the translators are glossing rather than translating, because the same word would work perfectly well. This reminds me of what the person who's producing an 'easier' Welsh version on the net said during the Eisteddfod, he was deliberatly glossing Law depending on his understanding of it. I think I'd rather see such glosses where they belong, in the margins.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
I don't like the NIV. It doesn't really matter why, as I'm just trying to be the most recent poster on all the boards.
Thanks folks. x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
No, it does matter. Why?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yeah, why?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anne Shirley:
I don't like the NIV. It doesn't really matter why, as I'm just trying to be the most recent poster on all the boards.
Thanks folks. x
[hostly biretta on]
Post pointless drivel again, just to become the most recent poster and I will delete your post.
[hosly biretta off]
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
My apologies babybear.
There is a mini-discussion on the change of name thread on the Styx where this is explained. I perhaps went about it the wrong way.
Anne x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
2 Timothy 2 from the NIV:
Instructions on Worship <snip>
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
There is nothing, zilch, zero in the text to suggest that the above has anything to do with "worship" yet including it under such a subheading is an attempt to strengthen the case against women in leadership and preaching.
Of course many translations include such sections headings which are not in the originals - they're as artificial as chapter and verse divisions. To be honest I often think the section headings do significantly alter how we read the verses that follow, however they make finding a particular passage easier. Does anyone know if the major translations are also available without these headings?
To be fair to the NIV they're not unique here, the Good News has 1 Tim 2 (I presume that's what you meant rather than 2 Tim) under the subject "Church Worship". I agree with your objection to Ephesians 5 - the GNB has the heading a verse earlier so that the "submit to one another" is included in the subject.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I once heard a preacher point out that the chapter numbers aren't canonical either, and might be mistaken. He was a charismatic, and claiming that 1 Cor 13 (St Paul's famous chapter about love) was over-rated, and shouldn't even really be a chapter in its own right; it is a parenthetical section in the great section (1 Cor 12-14) about the Gifts of the Spirit.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
I once heard a preacher point out that the chapter numbers aren't canonical either, and might be mistaken. He was a charismatic, and claiming that 1 Cor 13 (St Paul's famous chapter about love) was over-rated, and shouldn't even really be a chapter in its own right; it is a parenthetical section in the great section (1 Cor 12-14) about the Gifts of the Spirit.
Ah, but what a parenthetical it is! Anybody who thinks 1 Cor 13 is overrated probably isn't my kind of guy.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course many translations include such sections headings which are not in the originals - they're as artificial as chapter and verse divisions.
<Snip>
To be fair to the NIV they're not unique here
And making bad choices about where the divisions go seems to be a long-standing practice (says he, avoiding using the word tradition ).
You only need to look at the way Genesis Chapter 1 ends just before the account of the seventh day, when it would make far more sense for it to finish before or after Chapter 2 verse 4.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
Chapters and verses are very, very useful creations. However, they can pull things out of shape.
When I am leading Bible studies I rather like priniting out a chunk and removing chaper and verse numbers and heading (except the musical instructions in Psalms). It make it so much easier to read when there are no numbers.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
We do the same with our weekly bible readings sheets. We print the Bible readings for the service (including the Psalm) on a leaflet, to encourage people to take them away afterwards. Apart from the Bible reference at the top, we remove all chapter and verse numbers.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Couple of things came up elsewhere on another board whilst discussing Genesis.
Firstly, the NIV, uniquely as far as I know, uses the pluperfect in Genesis 2:19:
quote:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Secondly, in the same chapter (vv 16-17) the NIV states:
quote:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die
. Both the KVJ and Young's Literal Translation specify God saying "the day you eat it you shall die"
What was significant is that both these subtle changes were used by a fundamentalist debator (who was arguing for a literalist interpretation) to get out of the obvious problems of, in the first case, the contradictory order of creation in the two creation stories of Gen 1 and Gen 2, and in the second case, the fact that Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.
So, my question is, did the NIV translators purposely work from an assumption that scripture was innerant and therefore translate in such a way as to minimise problems of this kind?
Karl,
J. W. Rogerson makes similar comments to you in his book An Introduction to the Bible (Penguin 1999 pages 14 -15). He is a former Professor of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University. He quotes the bit in the preface already quoted by seasick about the translators commitment to ”the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form.”
He gives several examples of places in the NIV where the translation appears to have been swayed by the doctrinal commitment of the translators.
- One of those you mention, Genesis 2:19 , is the first he gives. Genesis 2:19 has God creating the animals after man not before which contradicts Genesis 1. So to translate it as saying ‘God had formed … all the beasts…’ deals with that. It is alone among the major translations in saying this.
- The one I loathe the most is the NIV’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 as ‘The virgin will be with child’ (which is what the Septuagint has and what Matthew quotes). It does not translate it as ‘the young woman’ which is what the Hebrew meant at the time Isaiah was written and which the RSV, GNB, NJB, NRSV & REB all have. What really gets my goat is that the NIV fails to even mention this in a footnote – there is nothing at all to indicate that there is any controversy in their choice of wording at all.
- Psalm 22:16 – the NIV translates this as “they have pierced my hands and feet” which is a translation of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew and which fits better as a prophecy of the crucifixion. The Hebrew is, when translated, ‘my hands and feet were like a lions.’ Most other modern versions try and translate the Hebrew.
- Yet another, not mentioned by Rogerson, is Ezekiel 20:25 –Speaking of Israel this verse has God saying in the NRSV and other major translations “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live.” This is an astonishing verse, suggesting the laws God gave to Israel were not good. The NIV removes the problems this would create as a contradiction with other parts of the bible by translating it as “I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by.” (my italics).
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
Good thread. never saw this the first time round.
just a point of information:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
What was significant is that both these subtle changes were used by a fundamentalist debator (who was arguing for a literalist interpretation) to get out of the obvious problems of, in the first case, the contradictory order of creation in the two creation stories of Gen 1 and Gen 2
etc
I don't really see how this gets him off the hook. Gen 2:3-9 clearly states that Adam was created before the plants, which contradicts Chapter 1.
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think they'd argue that God had made the plants, but they hadn't sprouted yet. And v. 9 refers purely to trees in Eden.
However, it's still a good point. If the plants hadn't sprouted yet, there must have been some rather hungry elephants, bison, hippopotami, rhinoceroi, sheep etc. etc. wandering around the place.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
Rhinoceroi??
The difference between translations is something I am only just coming to grips with. I was given an NIV a couple of years ago and found it much easier to use for Bible study than my Good News version. However, since starting more formal study, where the NRSV is the standard text, the differences in emphasis in the NIV are often surprising.
One lecturer has said that he dislikes the NIV because its provenance and assumptions affect its content, and I'm starting to see his point. The NRSV is hard going (give me the Good News anytime for reading) but seems to cover the controversies and contradictions more fairly.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rhisiart:
One lecturer has said that he dislikes the NIV because its provenance and assumptions affect its content, and I'm starting to see his point.
The NRSV does have its own hobby-horses though, particularly gender inclusiveness. I keep getting caught out by reading 'brothers and sisters', thinking, 'how progressive' and then noticing the footnote that says 'Gk: brothers'...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
You only need to look at the way Genesis Chapter 1 ends just before the account of the seventh day, when it would make far more sense for it to finish before or after Chapter 2 verse 4.
That's cos the 7th day never ended in our timeframe ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Interesting idea. Never seen any backing for it though.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
The NRSV does have its own hobby-horses though, particularly gender inclusiveness. I keep getting caught out by reading 'brothers and sisters', thinking, 'how progressive' and then noticing the footnote that says 'Gk: brothers'...
This translation may be justified. Did Greek use the word αδελφοι to mean brothers and sisters? It may have.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Did Greek use the word αδελφοι to mean brothers and sisters? It may have.
Moo
Well, depends what you mean, really. Literally, no. Greek had one word for 'brothers' and another for 'sisters', and they meant exactly what ours do - αδελφοι was just as male as 'brother' is in English
(Whether they had a word for 'siblings' I don't know, but anyway.)
The NRSV's point is that in the 1st-century if you addressed a mixed gathering you would call them 'brothers' etc., the language of that time working on the assumption that the male was senior.
Even leaving politics aside, we simply don't talk like that now - except for clergy over 70. If Paul was speaking in contemporary English he wouldn't address a mixed gathering as if they were all men. In that sense, 'brothers and sisters' better translates Paul's meaning than 'brothers'.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
You only need to look at the way Genesis Chapter 1 ends just before the account of the seventh day, when it would make far more sense for it to finish before or after Chapter 2 verse 4.
That's cos the 7th day never ended in our timeframe
Does that mean God is still resting?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Regarding chapter/verse divisions, I was told a wonderful - though no doubt apocryphal - tale that they were done by some Frenchman, riding in a carriage on his way to somewhere [long journey, methinks!] Everytime he hit a bump he started a new verse, and on bigger bumps he started a new chapter.
Given the verse divisions, it seems plausible enough to me! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Back to the translations, can I expand this to include the ESV ? My only real question - is this a thing only pushed in Evangelical circles, as I haven't heard much about it, except through Anglican Media Sydney. The idea, from my memory, was to move back to a more literal translation. Though it seems to include Glenn's pet hates from my quick perusal.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
A quick look at the translation team reveals a heavy preponderance of a fairly small number of universities, either in the present positions of the academics concerned or as their alma maters. I'm also not immediately impressed by the fact that one of the translators is a PhD candidate...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though Dr Ernest Lucas is a good bloke
(:thud: <-- sound of name being dropped )
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
I'm also not immediately impressed by the fact that one of the translators is a PhD candidate...
Don't be an intellectual snob over that. I know quite a few people who have worked in their subject area for years, and then gone on to do a PhD. Their professional abilities were not altered by them completing a PhD, it merely 'normalised' their situation.
[/tangent]
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calvin
Shipmate
# 271
|
Posted
I have been using ESV for a while and it seems to be closer to the NRSV than the NIV. Which pobably is not a great suprise given the translaion philosophy of the ESV (which can be found on the site linked to by AH).
--------------------
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.
Posts: 305 | From: Here and Now | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
Don't be an intellectual snob over that. I know quite a few people who have worked in their subject area for years, and then gone on to do a PhD. Their professional abilities were not altered by them completing a PhD, it merely 'normalised' their situation.
Yes, OK, it's a fair cop guv... On its own I might not have reacted that way, it was in the context of what seemed to be a fairly narrow range of translators that it struck me as not too inspiring.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elbow
Shipmate
# 3545
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Did Greek use the word αδελφοι to mean brothers and sisters? It may have.
Moo
Well, depends what you mean, really. Literally, no. Greek had one word for 'brothers' and another for 'sisters', and they meant exactly what ours do - αδελφοι was just as male as 'brother' is in English
(Whether they had a word for 'siblings' I don't know, but anyway.)
The NRSV's point is that in the 1st-century if you addressed a mixed gathering you would call them 'brothers' etc., the language of that time working on the assumption that the male was senior.
Even leaving politics aside, we simply don't talk like that now - except for clergy over 70. If Paul was speaking in contemporary English he wouldn't address a mixed gathering as if they were all men. In that sense, 'brothers and sisters' better translates Paul's meaning than 'brothers'.
I thought that the NRSV is supposed to be a more literal translation in the NASB/NKJV style as compared to the NIV ("dynamic equivalence").
Bible translators should be careful that they are translating the greek/hebrew, and not interpretting.
So this is of course a grey line. Really literal translation from the Greek produces highly unreadable english.
Elsewhere in this thread people have pointed out where the NIV may have gone too far into interpretation, betraying assumptions, even perhaps agenda.
But translating "brothers" (male, specifically not sisters or brothers and sisters) as "brothers and sisters" is surely an interpretation and not a translation.
I quite agree that the greek "brothers" should usually be read to include both sexes. But I do like to do my own interpretation.
Regards,
Steve
Posts: 65 | From: quite far from Cambridge | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
My understanding is that the ESV is a conservative/reformed evangelical revision of the RSV (with J.I.Packer being the moving spirit) to bring it both up-to-date and into line with (perceived) evangelical needs and provide a viable alternative to the NIV, which some parties believe has sold out. This summary of information on the ESV and, indeed, the NIV) tallies with what I have read at greater length elsewhere.
Regarding the NIV and the extent to which its translators believed/were required to believe in inerrancy, the same site gives further details (from a critical ultra-conservative perspective). It appears the standard the translators were required to sign up to was the Lausanne Covenant.
Incidentally, though I'd disagree with many of the site author's opinions and PoV, I've now book-marked it, since it seems to be perfectly accurate on its facts and has much useful trivia for the bible-collector! - perhaps moving somewhat off-topic, but this 1768 translation of the Lord's prayer had me in stitches:
quote:
"O Thou great governour and parent of universal nature - who manifestest thy glory to the blessed inhabitants of heaven - may all thy rational creatures in all the parts of thy boundless dominion be happy in the knowledge of thy existence and providence, and celebrate thy perfections in a manner most worthy of thy nature and perfective of their own!..."
Way further up the thread MarkthePunk mentions the "New King James" version in passing (which despite the name is a fresh revision); the caveats with this are that the translators were committed to "verbal plenary inspiration" (if I recall the preface correctly), and that the text translated is literally that which underlay the KJV - which means, for example, that large chunks of the Book of Revelation are translated from a Greek text that had been back-translated from the Vulgate! (Readings from the `majority text' - ie. the sanitised Textus Receptus - and the UBS text are included in the footnotes so readers can `decide for themselves'. I seem to recall the wording of the footnote to the Johannine comma - included, of course, in the main text - being particularly misleading.) Though I'm quite attracted to the idea of reintroducing italicisation of `inserted words' into the english text, however unfashionable and problematic the underlying translation philosophy may be. (And the NKJV might be a very valuable bridge for some of the dogmatic KJV-only crowd.)
And FWIW, I think the NRSV does have a slightly ikonoclastic `liberal' slant, even ignoring the inclusive language question. Though this doesn't stop it being my most used translation at present - I rather value the challenge it sometimes presents to my assumptions. So far as inclusive language goes, I think there are hints in the Preface that not all of the translators were entirely happy with `brothers or sisters'; there is a rumour that this was introduced during a very late stage of revision. I think there is an inescapable element of interpretation in translation - consider the difficulties in translating Hebrew poetry for example. But whilst inclusive language is probably the right decision for a bible intended to be read in public, I'm not convinced it was the best decision for a bible also intended for academic study; though the NRSV's very thorough footnoting of these changes is arguably the best compromise available for a translation aimed at both worlds.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
