What are the major criticisms of the NIV?

score:8

Accepted answer

I've seen three major categories of criticism for the NIV, but often people will combine two or three of them.

1. Text criticism: the NIV is based on critical texts

The NIV is a translation of the Nestle-Aland critical text of the Greek New Testament. It also critically evaluates the BHS for the OT, and often takes the Greek Septuagint as being a more reliable record than the Masoretic Hebrew.

Now most translations today are also based on these critical texts, and most people and scholars approve of their use. But there is a small minority of people who think the Textus Receptus or the Majority text is more reliable. Some of these fit into the KJV only movement, while others are not as concerned with the translation, just which source texts are used. If you see anyone talking about "missing" verses, this is what they mean: compared to the TR or MT the NIV has less verses. But most Christians wouldn't say that these verses are missing, but instead that they were added to some manuscripts after the texts were written.

2. Translation method: the NIV is a thought-for-thought translation

The NIV describes itself as "the very best combination of accuracy and readability.". It ranges between a word-for-word translation and a thought-for-thought translation. Clarity in the target language (English) is highly valued by the translators, and whole verses can be rearranged from the order which the source languages have, and which more word-for-word translations may copy. Another issue is idioms: phrases where the meaning of the whole is not found in the meanings of the individual parts. Translations like the NIV recognise more idioms than translations like the NASB, and when there are verses that are unclear in the original languages, unlike translations which translate the individual words even though they don't make sense in English, the NIV will give what the translators consider to be the most likely interpretation.

A number of people strongly disagree with any translation method other than word-for-word. In my opinion, they are misguided. Translating word-for-word is impossible to do completely, and gives little benefit even when you try.

3. Translation method: the NIV is a "progressive" translation

The NIV, and particularly its offshoot translation the TNIV (now largely merged together into the 2011 NIV), has been attacked for being progressive, in particular its gender accurate language. While some people say that it is trying to erase the gender distinctives of scripture, the changes it makes are only according to the current scholarly consensus: that the supposedly gendered language in the source languages is not actually gendered, and that formerly neutral terms in English now are strongly gendered. To ensure they were actually translating accurately into contemporary English they commissioned an independent report from Collins dictionaries to determine which words are actually used now - questions like whether it is more common to say "forefathers" or "ancestors", or "people" vs "mankind". This shows a great commitment to accuracy: true accuracy needs not only a right understanding of the source language, but also the target language. If other translations rely only on their translators' intuitions about what English is like, then we should expect they will occasionally make mistakes. This is why I don't say that it is "gender neutral", but instead "gender accurate" - the goal is not to make it neutral, but to make it accurate.

In all of these categories there are always individual verses where well-intentioned scholars will disagree. Text criticism, translation, and even knowing contemporary English are all difficult. In my opinion the NIV is a highly reliable translation for contemporary English. Even though no translation is perfect, praise God that we are blessed in English to have so many good options to compare between! And support the efforts to continue translating the Bible into every language which needs it.

Upvote:-1

NIV changes singular pronouns into plural pronouns in several places. I presume that this is to prevent "guilt" on the part of some readers. If NIV did this, what else? Sounds like NIV cabal was trying to be "relative" rather than "absolute." I don't need political correctness in the Bible I read.

Upvote:1

There are several reviews of the errors found in the NIV, and these can be found with an internet search. There is "The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation" here

But an examination of some of verses in the various translations will point out a clear bias on the part of the committee which oversaw the NIV translations. There are at first glance what may appear to be slight differences, but when carefully examined are glaring in implication.

Phil. 2:7, in the KJV reads -

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

and in the RSV reads -

"but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

and in Young's reads -

"but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,"

But, the NIV has translated it -

"rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."

And, the impact is quite different. The entire discussion of Phil. 2:5-11 is the glory of Christ unto whom all must kneel confessing that Christ is Lord. That He temporarily put off the "form of God" - vs. 6 - take on the form of a servant in vs. 7 did not make Him "nothing".

If something or someone is nothing, it / they do not exist. If someone is nothing, then are they important, or someone we should ignore?

The translation of the NIV makes Christ appear to be without authority, and contradicts other scripture that affirms His nature and deity as the Son of God (John 10:30; John 20:28; 1 John 5:7). It also implies that as He took on the likeness of a man, that therefore man is also nothing. This is not just a bad translation, but a completely false translation, and if not outright blasphemy it certainly borders on it.

This is not a one-off. 2 Pet. 2:8 correctly translation in Young's is

" and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence -- who are stumbling at the word, being unbelieving, -- to which also they were set;"

but in the NIV reads as,

" A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

Again, a subtle variance but one that makes it appear that Christ is the one who makes man to stumble, when in fact it is man that takes offense at the Word and stumbles / falls of his own will.

The NIV promotes the theology of "once saved always saved" by changing the subjunctive mood of "should" to the indicative mood of "shall" in John 3:16. Again, subtle, but a lie.

The NIV also changes the "only begotten Son" in John 3:16 to "one and only Son". Christ was begotten of God at His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) This was uniquely attributable to Christ. But, he is not the one and only, as we who are in Christ - baptized into His sacrifice - are also sons of God (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:6).

There are many more problems with the NIV, and they are severe.

See also:

The N.I.V. Infection here

The NIV Report here

Bold emphasis is mine.

Upvote:3

The NIV translation was carried out and overseen by a self-governing Committee of fifteen members called 'The Committee on Bible Translation'.

The document called 'The NIV Commitee on Bible Translation' contains the names of the Committee for the initial stages of the translation (1965 - 1983).

It also lists six de facto additional members (1976-1978) during a period called 'expansion of the CBT for editing purposes'. These may be the 'secular translators' referred to by the OP. They are :- Elmer Smick, Bruce Waltke, Herbert Wolf, Ronald Youngblood, Gleason Archer, and Roy Hayden.

Further listed are the 15 names of the members during 2002-2005 responsible for the revision of the NIV called the TNIV.

Lastly, the document also lists the fifteen members responsible for the 2011 revision.

To fairly comment on the suitability and competence of these Committee members would require a huge amount of research if it were not to be a mere expression of uninformed opinion.

As to the matter of 'the integrity of the text as a whole' ; that is a matter of Textual Criticism. The text used for the NIV, according to Wikipedia :

The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.[12] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.[13

The main issue regarding the text is the choice of the Westcott and Hort/Nestle text rather than the Textus Receptus. There are, of course, two very divided schools of thought on that matter.

More post

Search Posts

Related post