01 November 2010

The Updated NIV

I did a brief review of the text of the updated NIV over at Bible Gateway. Sorry to say that, based on what I have reviewed (admittedly checking a series of texts that are important to me), this is no improvement.

I have issues with the choices made in the NLT at times, and many of them are the same issues I have with what I see in the new NIV, but the NLT remains far more vibrant for verbal proclamation than does the updated NIV.

Among the oddities I noted was Revelation 22 - where the first section is noted headed up as "Eden Restored". That one caught me off guard. Also, as a complimentarian regarding men's and women's roles, I found the choices made about gendered language to be odd. Psalm 1 ignores the messianic emphasis palced upon it through nearly 1900 years of Christian history by making the reference to "the man" "the one", though it breaks with most other modern translations that do so by keeping the reference to 'the one' in the singular throughout the psalm. An odd choice.

Also odd is Phoebe being called a deacon in Romans 16, when, as I recall (and I don't have the greek in front of me right at the moment to verify this) the form of the word deacon used in that passage is cast in the feminine in the original text.

Genesis 1 and John 1, oddly enough (not that I am objecting, mind you), retains the usage of the term mankind. In fact, in the several passages I reviewed, mankind was universally used. Strange to use this term, which engenders much controversy in liberal circles, while purging gender references from other texts - including ones where the word itself is specifically feminine!

This NIV update appears to me to be an odd cat. I think I'll just stay with the NLT.

4 comments:

Anonymous November 1, 2010 at 9:18 PM  

You realize that the gender of a word in the Greek doesn't imply gender in the sex of the referent, correct?

You would do well to learn that, and stay away from people who are teaching you the opposite.

Gary November 2, 2010 at 2:06 AM  

The committee gave an explanation of their approach in pdf format here. They explain that they found decent evidence that "mankind" still finds common enough usage to be understandable.

As a fellow complementarian, I too dislike their handling of gender. Due to differing views on gender, I have to wonder whether a universal English version is even possible.

robhu November 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM  

I thought you and your readers might find it useful to know that I've just put up some pages that show how similar the NIV2011 is to the NIV1984 and the TNIV. My pages also show each verse where the NIV2011 differs from the NIV1984 or the TNIV in an easily read / clear manner.

The pages are online @ http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/

I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions if anyone has any. Please either email me robert@slowley.com or leave a comment on my blog post http://community.livejournal.com/robhu_bible/4977.html

Thank you,
-RobHu

chaidrinkingfool November 6, 2010 at 6:35 PM  

You may want to double-check that about Phoebe. If I recall correctly, the word used to describe her role is the same word that we transliterate into "deacon". I don't think "deaconness" as a word appeared until a later time.

All original material (C) 2007-2010 by Father Robert Lyons.

  © Blogger templates 'Neuronic' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP