I was having coffee with a friend this morning and he said something I found quite interesting concerning the NIV Bible. He told me that one of his old profs (I forget his name) was one of the ones who contributed to writing the NIV. He told my friend that the NIV that we have does not read the same way that it was meant to be read. This was because when it went to the editors, they changed it so it could be read easier, but in so doing missed the accuracy that was originally submitted.
Editors normally give general parameters to work in "5th grad reading level" etc., but do not change the text "per se." The largest problem is "time" because it is "money" and thus there are deadlines to operate under. The primary reason why "no" Bible is 100% the way any one translator would like it to be is the texts that are disagreed upon are voted upon after arguments are made. Look at The NIV Committee on Bible Translation and see the different denominations and seminaries (which differ in hermeneutical analysis, etc.) that are represented..... One can see where there may be a few disagreements... God's Word has been reduced down to a vote of what is ???? Do you realize that Psalm 23 does not "literally" read as it does in Hebrew (vs 6; the term "forever" is actually "for a length of days")? Why, because it is the classic for funerals and if it is changed the Bible will "not sell" (and this was discussed and voted upon in one version, not sure it was the NIV though....) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />
Tom said: He told me that one of his old profs (I forget his name) was one of the ones who contributed to writing the NIV. He told my friend that the NIV that we have does not read the same way that it was meant to be read.
One of my former professors was one of the Translators also and we discussed his involvement with the NIV and particularly the fallacy of using a Dynamic Equivalence method of translation. Not once did this man ever say anything about the translation being changed by the publisher's editors.
Now, it would be interesting to know what this actually means, "does not read the same way that it was meant to be read"???? That is anything but a cogent statement. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
That was my words not my friends. It was just my attempt to say that the editors changed the original words in order to make it more understandable to the reader. I am going to ask my friend if he can elaborate anymore on this matter. By the way, I remembered you had a former professor that was one of the translators of the NIV and I was hoping you would comment on this matter. Do you still have access to this professor? If so, can you ask him about this aspect?
Tom said: Do you still have access to this professor? If so, can you ask him about this aspect?
Sorry Tom, but I would never bother the man with such a trivial question. For myself, it wouldn't make a wit of difference, since the NIV was translated via Dynamic Equivalence and thus I have no use for it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
Do you realize that Psalm 23 does not "literally" read as it does in Hebrew (vs 6; the term "forever" is actually "for a length of days")? Why, because it is the classic for funerals and if it is changed the Bible will "not sell" (and this was discussed and voted upon in one version, not sure it was the NIV though....)
Am I remembering correctly?? Seems like there was a discussion some time ago about the NIV and the issue of financial motives in putting it together. Is this true? Like the example you gave, what "evidence" is out there that this is true??
J_Edwards said: Do you realize that Psalm 23 does not "literally" read as it does in Hebrew (vs 6; the term "forever" is actually "for a length of days")? Why, because it is the classic for funerals and if it is changed the Bible will "not sell" (and this was discussed and voted upon in one version, not sure it was the NIV though....) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />
I am not certain Psalm 23 was changed due to pecuniary motives. I would translate verse 6 as "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of Jehovah for as long as my days."
I understand the phrase "for as long as my days" to mean, for a man who was assured of eternal life, "forever." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
However, this is an excellent example of dynamic equivalence even in bibles purported to be more formal equivalence translations such as the KJV and the NASB. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I understand the phrase "for as long as my days" to mean, for a man who was assured of eternal life, "forever."
I agree and so would the Jews, however many today reading this on their death beds would say I am going to be dead tomorrow so much "for as long as my days." The translation thus is not literal to hold down on the confusion it may impose..... As I previously stated this was an issue that was voted in one of the Bible translations...... and this type of stuff happens all the time....
The making of a new Bible versions is huge in the US. Big bucks change hands...... I believe most translators are in it not so much for the money (though it is big bucks....), but for the integrity of the text. Think if there were only liberals on the translation committees what some may be reading.... (of course some of the perversions out there make you ? this...)
As far as the illustration I gave, I know at least five professors who have been on numerous committees and the Psa 23 illustration came from one of their meetings..... others have related similar stories....
J_Edwards said: As I previously stated this was an issue that was voted in one of the Bible translations...... and this type of stuff happens all the time....
Where did you get the information that it was voted on in one of the translations? Every example of Psalm 23 I can find with the exception of the Geneva reads "forever" or some variation thereof. The Geneva seems to follow the Septuagint reading of "for a very long time."
The KJV seems to follow the reading of the earlier authorized versions, and the ERV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc., seem to follow suit.
Where did you read of one of the translation committees voting on the reading of Psalm 23:6 and what was the context of that vote? To stay with the traditional reading or to change it so a more literal but less easy to understand reading?
Where did you read of one of the translation committees voting on the reading of Psalm 23:6 and what was the context of that vote? To stay with the traditional reading or to change it so a more literal but less easy to understand reading?
One of my professors who was "personally" on the translation committee, stated so in class.
J_Edwards said:One of my professors who was "personally" on the translation committee, stated so in class.
On the translation committee of the NIV? So it was voted on for the NIV? So this is personal testimony regarding the NIV reading only.
And what of all the earlier English versions that read "for ever" or words to that effect?
To the best of my knowledge all of the KJV translator's notes were lost in the Great Fire of 1629 with the exception of hand written copies of the final revision committee's notes on Romans through Revelation found in the Bodleian Library (catalog number CCC 312).
If your professor is aware of any additional notes, specifically on the OT, those notes and their whereabouts would be of great historic significance.
Please contact him and ask him where he got that information and where that information can be found today.