Post by Once4all on Nov 1, 2010 11:16:36 GMT -5
The new version of the NIV is now available on BibleGateway.com. It has replaced the previous version.
Some interesting things to read in the translator notes. Some things I agree with, some I don't. Anytime they completely remove a word from the text that was there in the original language manuscripts, I get upset. To me, that is a dangerous thing to do, no matter how well it supposedly modernizes the language. Example:
While their rendering may be correct in meaning, I'm uncomfortable with dropping words that could hold deeper meaning or be used to compare other verses using the same word. I find such revisions scary.
And here is something I've expected to come. The NIV already had a good start with twisting the Scriptures to support their theology, but they continue with their new abomination (yeah, I'm getting opinionated now!)
Here's what they say about it:
They are forcing their theology onto the text, applying their own meaning to harpagmos (G725). It completely ignores the meaning of the related word harpazō (G726).
Go ahead, trinitarians, swallow it: hook, line, and sinker.
Here's one I agree with:
"Flesh" is the literal translation. "Sinful nature" was an NIV innovation.
Here is one more of interest:
Here's the link to the translator notes:
www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf
Some interesting things to read in the translator notes. Some things I agree with, some I don't. Anytime they completely remove a word from the text that was there in the original language manuscripts, I get upset. To me, that is a dangerous thing to do, no matter how well it supposedly modernizes the language. Example:
In Exodus 4:14 Aaron’s ‟heart will be glad when he sees” Moses, but today we would just render this Semitic idiom as ‟he will be glad to see you” — as the updated NIV does.
While their rendering may be correct in meaning, I'm uncomfortable with dropping words that could hold deeper meaning or be used to compare other verses using the same word. I find such revisions scary.
And here is something I've expected to come. The NIV already had a good start with twisting the Scriptures to support their theology, but they continue with their new abomination (yeah, I'm getting opinionated now!)
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
Here's what they say about it:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
They are forcing their theology onto the text, applying their own meaning to harpagmos (G725). It completely ignores the meaning of the related word harpazō (G726).
Go ahead, trinitarians, swallow it: hook, line, and sinker.
Here's one I agree with:
Most occurrences of ‟sinful nature” have become ‟flesh.
"Flesh" is the literal translation. "Sinful nature" was an NIV innovation.
Here is one more of interest:
2 Corinthians 5:17
1984: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
Updated NIV: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”
A footnote gives as an alternative, ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
This time it is the Greek that is elliptical, reading simply ‟new creation.” Is it the person in Christ who is the new creation? Yes, of course. But if that’s all Paul meant, there are other more natural ways he could have said it. Given his overall theology that the coming of Christ and the new era he inaugurated began the period of the restoration of all things that would culminate in new heavens and new earth, it is likely that Paul is making a much more sweeping claim than just the salvation of the individual believer. A new universe is in the works!
1984: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
Updated NIV: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”
A footnote gives as an alternative, ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
This time it is the Greek that is elliptical, reading simply ‟new creation.” Is it the person in Christ who is the new creation? Yes, of course. But if that’s all Paul meant, there are other more natural ways he could have said it. Given his overall theology that the coming of Christ and the new era he inaugurated began the period of the restoration of all things that would culminate in new heavens and new earth, it is likely that Paul is making a much more sweeping claim than just the salvation of the individual believer. A new universe is in the works!
Here's the link to the translator notes:
www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf