It needs it

The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible is going to be revised.  I don't use the NIV very much because, to me, it has a "Calvinist slant."  Plus, I'm not impressed with the quality of the translation.  In recent years, I've come to prefer the most literal translation possible, which, more often than not, is the King James Version (KJV), and, to a lesser extent, the New Revised Standard.

The first attempt at revision of the NIV, called Today's New International Version (TNIV), floundered on issues of gender-inclusivity. 

It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from "sons of God" to "children of God," or "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." In Genesis I, God created "human beings" in his own image instead of "man."

The Greek anthropos, typically rendered "man," really should be translated as "human being," but this went against the ideology of many evangelicals.  The NIV is the favored Bible of evangelicals, who, let's just say, are generally not in the forefront on issues of gender-inclusivity.  

Comments

[jeffkramerak]

No matter what the translation, we must be careful that the true MEANING is not tainted, or changed…we cannot add or take away words, lets not forget what it says in the last book of Revelations.

[John Petty]

Even legitimate translations have differences as to meaning. For example, the Greek word for "will" is thelo, which can also mean "wish" or "desire." That puts a different spin on the phrase "God's will."

The note in Revelation was probably put there because, in the ancient world, it was not unknown for people to add or take away certain things from the writings of others.

Thanks for your visit!

[Andrew]

Sounds like the NIV has an "Evangelical slant," rather than a Calvinist. As a Calvinist myself (PCUSA), I've only ever heard the RSV, NRSV, and The Message used in the various Presbyterian services and meetings I've attended. I personally prefer the NRSV, but my congregation uses The Message, which I find to be absolutely repulsive...

[John Petty]

I've heard it used fairly often myself. I think it's fine for reading, or even study. I've checked a few of Peterson's passages in the Greek, and he usually comes up with a fair interpretation, based on the Greek.

I agree with you, though, that it doesn't have the proper gravitas for public reading.

[Hypatia]

I have the Oxford Annotated Bible along with the King James version and the old Catholic version from Douai and as far as I'm concerned, I'm all set.

Regardless of their errors and the language, increasingly less accessible to people who want everything made simple for them, the King James and the Douai were written by men with an intensity of faith and feeling for the beauty of the English language that is gone from the scholarship of today and I find even the Oxford version hard to take at times. I was particularly irked by things like having the flow and color of lines like "Who shall find a valiant woman?" changed to the hopelessly mundane "Who shall find a good wife?" The first woman is a heroine, the second a convenient household aid. Sigh.

[Frank Glenn]

Try the New Living Translation (on Bible Gateway http://www.biblegateway.com/ to save $$) for both literality and good "starter" footnotes. I prefer The Message (pace Andrew) for worship as it shakes up the listeners' expectations. As Rick Nelson sang, "If all I could sing is a memory, I'd rather drive a truck."

[John Petty]

I'll check it out. I'm told that the Lutheran Study Bible is pretty good--not the Missouri Synod one, but the ELCA one.

[John Petty]

Hypatia, I'm not a big fan of the archaic language in the KJV, but I do appreciate that it follows the Greek pretty darn literally, even down to the proper tenses of verbs, even when they don't sound right in English.

[Hypatia]

That's something I can't appreciate, alas, not having any Greek - I first started reading your site for your enlightening explications.

[John Petty]

Hope you got some!