New International Version - 2011 Version

[ebeddoulos]

I recently acquired the latest 2011 edition of the New International Version. According to Zondervan, the publisher, the 1984 edition along with the 2005 tNIV is being phased out. I decided to see what changed between the 1984 and the 2011 edition. There are a ton of differences. I would conservatively guestimate in the range of 20K or so, not counting punctuation.

I found several instances such as Psalms 23:4 in the NIV2011 a wee bit jarring for what my traditionalist mind found missing.

• Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (Psalms 23:4)

I found Psalms 8:3-4 very troubling. The Hebrew bên âdâm (ובן אדם) or “son of man” is a messianic title with which Jesus Christ referred to himself (see Matthew 16:3). I am puzzled why the NIV translation committee would obscure that.

• When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man mankind that you are mindful of him, the son of man human beings that you care for him them? (Psalms 8:3-4)

There are a lot of such discrepancies. Just for grins and giggles, I list the changes in Revelation 22:18-19:

• I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him that person the plagues described in this book scroll: And if anyone takes words away from this book scroll of prophecy, God will take away from him his that person any share in the tree of life and in the holy city Holy City, which are described in this book scroll. (Revelation 22:18-19)

The next time a neophyte antiMormon arrives armed with Revelation 22:18-19 or the old 4,000 error canard, I may use this to illustrate the error.

[volgadon]

I found Psalms 8:3-4 very troubling. The Hebrew bên âdâm (ובן אדם) or “son of man” is a messianic title with which Jesus Christ referred to himself (see Matthew 16:3). I am puzzled why the NIV translation committee would obscure that.

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of him, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:3-4)

The Hebrew form here means a son of man, that is, generic rather than specific. So the NIV here is fairly correct.

[LeSellers]

The Hebrew form here means a son of man, that is, generic rather than specific. So the NIV here is fairly correct.

I know that one of the modern translations, and if I recall correctly, it is the NIV New Revised Standard Version, has as its motto "As literal as possible, as free as necessary", or some such.

As "son of man" is literal, as far as I can tell (ben adam" = "son of man"), it seems reasonable (since "son of man" is at least as understandable as "human beings"—which is the wrong number anyway) to use the more literal translation. But, since it appears that the NIV/2011 (and previous editions) are trying to be politically correct and "included" women in the "message", the translators have made a blunder nonetheless, their good intentions notwithstanbding.

Lehi

Edited September 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

While in the MTC I was taught that "son of man", depending on OT use or NT use, meant two different things.

That in the OT, son of man meant people

but in the NT son of man meant Christ.

I like the change for Rev. did they make the same verbage change in the Duet. verse that essentially states the same thing?

[David T]

Frankenstein:

As I understand it, Son of Man, in the post-exilic period, became an eschatological endtime figure, as represented in apocalyptic texts such as Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc. The NT references are to this eschatological figure.

[Questing Beast]

Going all PC with the genderless approach is not as accurate as sticking with the original male emphasis. Someday, "they" (the NIV staff) will reverse themselves, because of a predilection for literal adherence to the original, and restore the male nomenclature....

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

I found several instances such as Psalms 23:4 in the NIV2011 a wee bit jarring for what my traditionalist mind found missing.

• Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (Psalms 23:4)

I like the more literal translation too, but "darkest valley" accurately expresses the meaning of the text.

I found Psalms 8:3-4 very troubling. The Hebrew bên âdâm (ובן אדם) or “son of man” is a messianic title with which Jesus Christ referred to himself (see Matthew 16:3). I am puzzled why the NIV translation committee would obscure that.

• When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man mankind that you are mindful of him, the son of man human beings that you care for him them? (Psalms 8:3-4)

I'm with you on this one. It's true that "son of man" in Hebrew is an idiomatic way of saying "a human being," and one could argue that both "man" and "son of man" are used generically here in Psalm 8:3-4 (which explains the collective "mankind" and the plural "human beings"). But more is going on here. This is a Davidic psalm, and the NT treats it as having messianic implications, as you correctly point out (Matt. 21:16; 1 Cor. 15:27; Heb. 2:6-9). The connection is obscured by the more idiomatic English translation. It isn't wrong, but it's not the best rendering.

Just for grins and giggles, I list the changes in Revelation 22:18-19:

• I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him that person the plagues described in this book scroll: And if anyone takes words away from this book scroll of prophecy, God will take away from him his that person any share in the tree of life and in the holy city Holy City, which are described in this book scroll. (Revelation 22:18-19)

The next time a neophyte antiMormon arrives armed with Revelation 22:18-19 or the old 4,000 error canard, I may use this to illustrate the error.

The changes in wording of Revelation 22:18-19 you show here do not add or take away anything from the text, so there's no problem here. Nor is there any legitimate comparison to Joseph Smith adding whole paragraphs and thoroughly revising whole sections of the Bible or making significant theological changes to the supposedly inspired translation of the Book of Mormon to match his evolving theology.

[ebeddoulos]

Man was I off. According to THIS SITE, the NIV changed more than 30,000 words.

• NIV2011 changed words - 33,666
  NIV2011 removed words - 32,863
  NIV2011 added words - 34,469

The changes in wording of Revelation 22:18-19 you show here do not add or take away anything from the text, so there's no problem here.

Agreed.

Nor is there any legitimate comparison to Joseph Smith adding whole paragraphs and thoroughly revising whole sections of the Bible or making significant theological changes to the supposedly inspired translation of the Book of Mormon to match his evolving theology.

Are you sure you wish to stick to that sandpile scriptural foundation? If so please read the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah, paying particular attention to verse thirty-two.

Then there are the final twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.

Or we could discuss the Pericope Adulterae of John 7:53-8:11.

If that is not enough, I have other examples, though those three should be illustrative enough.

In short, each of those are examples of accepted additions to scripture. The precedence is there.

Did you not self-proclaim to be a “biblical scholar by professional, academic training”? PSSST … your "supposed" scholarship is showing.

Another personal attack and the thread will be closed. Stick to your topic.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Minos
Insults

[Hughes]

At least we have documents in the original languages that we can reference...

[frankenstein]

The changes in wording of Revelation 22:18-19 you show here do not add or take away anything from the text, so there's no problem here. Nor is there any legitimate comparison to Joseph Smith adding whole paragraphs and thoroughly revising whole sections of the Bible or making significant theological changes to the supposedly inspired translation of the Book of Mormon to match his evolving theology.

Given that Revelation 22:18-19 has nothing to do with the "Bible" but only concerns the "scroll" upon which John wrote is now known as the Book of Revelation, contain within a collection of Books known affectionately as "The Bible", isn't your point just moot or off topic?

I would say the NIV going from Book to Scroll is an acknowledgment that the "Bible" did not exist at the time John wrote Revelation and further it is acknowledgment that Rev 22 applies only to Rev itself and not the whole Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

Are you sure you wish to stick to that sandpile scriptural foundation? If so please read the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah, paying particular attention to verse thirty-two.

I have written a detailed article entitled "A Tale of Two Scrolls: Jeremiah's Replacement Scroll and Mormon 'Restoration' of Scripture," which discusses this point, but forum rules as interpreted by the moderators do not allow me to link to that article. I'm sure you can find it, though.

You wrote:

Then there are the final twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Or we could discuss the Pericope Adulterae of John 7:53-8:11. If that is not enough, I have other examples, though those three should be illustrative enough. In short, each of those are examples of accepted additions to scripture. The precedence is there.

Those who recognize (as I do) that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 were later additions to the books of Mark and John do not accept these texts as scripture.

[Rob Bowman]

frankenstein,

You wrote:

Given that Revelation 22:18-19 has nothing to do with the "Bible" but only concerns the "scroll" upon which John wrote is now known as the Book of Revelation, contain within a collection of Books known affectionately as "The Bible", isn't your point just moot or off topic?

I would say the NIV going from Book to Scroll is an acknowledgment that the "Bible" did not exist at the time John wrote Revelation and further it is acknowledgment that Rev 22 applies only to Rev itself and not the whole Bible.

I don't see how. I wasn't suggesting that Revelation 22:18-19 refers to the whole Bible. I agree that in context it refers to the book of Revelation. But I didn't bring up this text. My point was that more precise renderings (scroll instead of book) are not in any reasonable way comparable to wholesale revision of earlier, extant revelations in order to bring them into line with one's changing theology.

[Damien the Leper]

I have heard quite a bit of criticism toward this edition. I kinda like The Message Bible but some conservative Christians think it too abrasive and simplistic.

Here are some snippets:

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. John 3:16

If with heart and soul you're doing good, do you think you can be stopped? Even if you suffer for it, you're still better off. Don't give the opposition a second thought. Through thick and thin, keep your hearts at attention, in adoration before Christ, your Master. Be ready to speak up and tell anyone who asks why you're living the way you are, and always with the utmost courtesy. Keep a clear conscience before God so that when people throw mud at you, none of it will stick. They'll end up realizing that they're the ones who need a bath. It's better to suffer for doing good, if that's what God wants, than to be punished for doing bad. That's what Christ did definitively: suffered because of others' sins, the Righteous One for the unrighteous ones. He went through it all—was put to death and then made alive—to bring us to God. 1 Peter 3:15

[Zakuska]

At least we have documents in the original languages that we can reference...

3 copies removed...

[Zakuska]

I don't see how. I wasn't suggesting that Revelation 22:18-19 refers to the whole Bible. I agree that in context it refers to the book of Revelation. But I didn't bring up this text. My point was that more precise renderings (scroll instead of book) are not in any reasonable way comparable to wholesale revision of earlier, extant revelations in order to bring them into line with one's changing theology.

You mean kind of like the changing theology of the Deuteronomist redactors and their editing of the scriptures?

Deut 32

⁸ When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,

When He separated the sons of Adam,

He set the boundaries of the peoples

According to the number of the children of Israel. [1]

[1] Deuteronomy 32:8 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint) sons of God

Edited September 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

At least we have documents in the original languages that we can reference...

I find it interesting how you say "we," as if you're trying to exclude us. We claim the Bible as our scripture just as much as you do.

[3DOP]

Hi ebeddoulos

Many of the changes you note reflect the way modern men and women have changed their speaking and thinking. Modern men and women no longer accept that masculine expressions include the female of the species as men and women have done for all ages except our own. The accomodations of speech are linguistically clumsy and inelegant, but without such explicit adaptations, modern men and women will misunderstand the men and women who did the translating to be excluding women.

Edited September 9, 2011 by 3DOP

[Hughes]

3 copies removed...

Which is a thousand percent more than we have for the BoM.

I find it interesting how you say "we," as if you're trying to exclude us. We claim the Bible as our scripture just as much as you do.

Actually that is false. You (LDS) claim it's scripture only as far as it's correctly translated. And (LDS) modern revelation supersedes revelation found in the bible. For Evangelicals it is relied on as the foundation of all doctrine.

I said, "we" because for all of us (those interested in historical documents), we all have a great privilege, in that we all can look at the original language documents (yes they are copies), and analyze which translation/interpretation we agree with. We all, can't do that with the BoM.

[Anakin7]

Which is a thousand percent more than we have for the BoM.

Actually that is false. You (LDS) claim it's scripture only as far as it's correctly translated. And (LDS) modern revelation supersedes revelation found in the bible. For Evangelicals it is relied on as the foundation of all doctrine.

I said, "we" because for all of us (those interested in historical documents), we all have a great privilege, in that we all can look at the original language documents (yes they are copies), and analyze which translation/interpretation we agree with. We all, can't do that with the BoM.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/are.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[LeSellers]

Many of the changes you note reflect the way modern men and women have changed their speaking and thinking. Modern men and women no longer accept that masculine expressions include the female of the species as men and women have done for all ages except our own.

You'd be correct were you to say “modern English-speaking men and women ...” because in the other languages I speak (Italian, French, German, and Spanish—the latter two not well, mind), modern men and women understand this very well.

The loss is ours.

The accomodations of speech are linguistically clumsy and inelegant, ...

This is an understatement. They are also extraordinarily illogical. How man "everyones" are there in a "they"?

but without such explicit adaptations, modern men and women will misunderstand the men and women who did the translating to be excluding women.

Again, this is Anglo-centric. Alas! the failed concept of grammatical gender (the only valid type).

Lehi

Edited September 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[Zakuska]

All I can say is, nobody can argue that these textual variants do not effect core Christian doctrines. Check these out... they completely change what Paul said!!!?

Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed a priority on orthodoxy (right belief) before orthopraxy (right practice). The soteriology of Paul's statements in this matter has always been a matter of dispute (for example, see 2 Peter 3:16); the ancient gnostics interpreted Paul to be referring to the manner in which embarking on a path to enlightenment ultimately leads to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted salvation. In what has become the modern Protestant orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to justification simply by trusting Christ. See also New Perspective on Paul.

Paul used the term freedom in Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e. not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." In Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the

Jews

which are among the

Gentiles

to forsake

Moses

, saying that they ought not to

circumcise

their children, neither to walk after the customs.—KJV

Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the NIV translates these verses: "...he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." However, the NRSV translates this same verse as: "...he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which according to Strong's G5498^[30] literally means "something written by hand" which is variously translated as "written code" or "record", as in a record of

debt.

In the NIV Paul says that Christ got rid of the Mosaic Law and nailed it to his cross making it essentially non-binding on the believer. (Do God's laws change?) But in the NRSV he expunged the record of sins that are being recorded for each person/nation. That makes a HUGE difference in doctrine, and the NRSV makes alot more sense!

"Though your sins may be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow;" says Isaiah.

" And I the Lord will remember them no more".

The reason I say the NRSV version makes alot more sense is because if we read the writtings of the Prophets such as Jeremiah what do we see? God and his Prophet cataloging the sins of the nation (Israel and Jerusalem) he is calling to repentance. Jonah catalogs the sins of Nineveh and calls them to repentance and they do. Isaiah Catalogs sins of Judah and Israel. Ezekiel catalogs the sins of Assyria and Judah.

Of course from an Evangelical "Faith Alone Grace alone" Antinomian perspective that Gods laws are merely lacey window dressings and wether we obey them or not our salvation is secured no matter what we do, the NIV makes more sense.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Antinomianism

Edited September 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[ebeddoulos]

Those who recognize (as I do) that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 were later additions to the books of Mark and John do not accept these texts as scripture.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all those verses, phrases and words which the NIV translation committee has left out due their belief that they are a late addition, you do not accept as scripture? Or do you selectively pick and choose which ones to believe or disbelieve? If the latter by what guide do make your selection?

Edited September 9, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[ebeddoulos]

Actually that is false. You (LDS) claim it's scripture only as far as it's correctly translated.

Hughes,

I am just curious. According to 2 Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim slay?

Was it Goliath?

• “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV1984)

Or was it Goliath’s brother?

• “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV2011)

In your opinion, are both editions of the New International Version (1984 and 2011) correct?

Edited September 9, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[3DOP]

You'd be correct were you to say “modern English-speaking men and women ...” because in the other languages I speak (Italian, French, German, and Spanish—the latter two not well, mind), modern men and women understand this very well.

The loss is ours.

This is an understatement. They are also extraordinarily illogical. How man "everyones" are there in a "they"?

Again, this is Anglo-centric. Alas! the failed concept of grammatical gender (the only valid type).

Lehi

Oh really, Lehi? I am pleased if this linguistic parasite has not attached itself to the other main European languages. In any case, I hesitantly appreciate the correction as I had assumed that the speakers of those languages would not wish to be outdone by the English-speaking world. They have not done as we have? If an Italian had learned English thirty years ago, he would not necessarily know that he was failing to use modern English when he spoke of "man" or "mankind" in 2011. Are your language skills as updated as to know that the influences which have corrupted our native tongue so much as to make it impolitic to refer to Christ as "Son of Man", have not also affected the Italians, French, Germans, or Spanish?

[LeSellers]

Are your language skills as updated as to know that the influences which have corrupted our native tongue so much as to make it impolitic to refer to Christ as "Son of Man", have not also affected the Italians, French, Germans, or Spanish?

I read French newspapers frequently, and they still recognize that "il" can refer to anyone of unknown sex, as can elle if the antecedent is "une personne".

French, Italian, Spanish, and German do not have what one might call "natural gender": they have grammatical gender (pardon the redundancy)—and pronouns always refer to the gender (not "sex") of the noun to which they refer. Thus, "une personne", whether she is a man or a woman, is always "elle" (when they use a pronoun), a feminine pronoun, because the word "personne" is a feminine noun. "Those people (persons) over there are [verb]ing...", are always "Ces personnes là, elles font ...".

It's the same for educated Italians and Spaniards in their languages. There is no tendency to use "they" {"ils", for instance) because they have plural feminine pronouns ("elles") and maintain the distinction between masculine and feminine nouns there, too. All references to mixed or unknown gender groups ("stuff", or humans, or clothing, or cars'n'trucks) become masculine plural.

In German, a "girl" is neuter (madchen) because it is a composite noun (made of two parts), so the word does not follow the "logical" path to get its gender, the path there is wholly grammatical. In both French and italian, and I believe in Spanish, too, the nouns for "girl" are feminine based on the sex of the referred to concept.

Further, because nouns (as words) all have gender, and because possessive pronouns ("my", "your", etc.) do not carry the gender of the possessor, but of the possessed, a man would have "her" wife ("sa femme") and a woman "his" husband ("son mari").

In Spanish, French, and Italian, the word for "son" is also the word used most often for "children" (in the "offspring" sense). Thus, "we have five sons and seven children" = "Nous avons cinq fils et sept fils" = "Abbiamo cinque figli e sette figli" = "Tenemos cinco hijos y siete hijos". In this specific case, in French and German, the word would probably be "enfants" (plural, masculine) and "Kinder" (plural, neuter). I used it as an example, not a particular. But in both Italian and Spanish, it would be just like this. It's the same for sisters and brothers.

Because of this grammatical distance between the word and the thing it stands for, the ideas expressed by "man" ("l'homme", "l'uomo", etc.), when referring to the human race, are not exclusive at all.

Lehi

Edited September 12, 2011 by LeSellers