Among the many English versions of the
Bible that appeared in the twentieth century, the New International
Version (NIV: 1973, 1978, 1984) has gained the widest readership in
all parts of the English-speaking world. The NIV was a completely new
translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best
available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The fact that participants from
the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked
together gave the project its international scope. That they were from
many denominations—including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist,
Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free,
Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other
churches—helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
Responsibility for the NIV text is held by a self-governing body, the
Committee on Bible Translation, composed of biblical scholars from
colleges, universities and seminaries.
From the beginning, the translators were
united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible
as God's Word in written form. They believed that it contains the divine
answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our
path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal
well-being. In light of this, the Committee held to certain goals for the
NIV: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have
clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private
reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee
also sought to preserve a measure of continuity with the long tradition of
translating the Scriptures into English.
There is a sense in which the work of
translating the Bible is never finally finished.
This very fact has prompted the Committee to engage in an ongoing review
of the text of the NIV with the assistance of many other scholars. The
chief goal of this review has always been to bring the text of the NIV
abreast of contemporary biblical scholarship and of shifts in
English idioms and usage. Already in 1978 and again in 1984 various
corrections and revisions to the NIV text were made. In Today's New
International Version (TNIV) the Committee offers to the
reading public the latest fruits of this review.
This has been a statement of
the NIV translators from the beginning. They don’t believe that
there is such a thing a completed translation (at least not until they
have accomplished their dastardly deeds).
The first concern of the translators has
been the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the meaning
of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to strive for
more than a word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because
thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate
communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands
constant regard for the contextual meanings of words and idioms and
frequent modifications in sentence structures.
It is very profound to note
that they claim their “first concern” is for accuracy, however in the very
next sentence, we see that they DID NOT WANT accuracy, they wanted
OPINIONS of a handful of people. Hence, the “more than a
word-for-word rendering”, and the statements about “thought patterns”.
IF YOU REALLY WANT ACCURACY, TRANSLATE MY WORDS. Don’t try to
“Guess” what I am thinking!
To achieve clarity the translators have
sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the
context. If there was uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in
brackets. As an aid to the reader, italicized sectional headings have been
inserted. They are not to be regarded as part of the TNIV text and are not
for oral reading. It is the Committee's hope that the headings may
prove more helpful to the reader than the traditional chapter
divisions (which come only from the thirteenth century).
That the Headings may prove
more helpful? They let you know here that they intend in the future;
and that is to change the structure of the Bible. What better way to
accomplish an evil deed than to make verse 14 into verse 2, chapter 8 into
chapter 1, delete a few here and a few there. Look
particularly at the statement about “thirteenth century” divisions … it
gives us insight into what they REALLY think.
The Greek text used in translating
the New Testament has been an eclectic one. Where existing
manuscripts differ, the translators have made their choice of readings
in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual
criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was
uncertainty about what the original text was. Such footnotes are
introduced by "Some manuscripts" or similar expressions.
Again, the goal was not to
provide an accurate translation at all. The very word ECLECTIC
shows that they DID ‘pick and choose’ what they wished to include, change,
etc.
Other footnotes in this version are of
several kinds, most of which need no explanation. Those giving alternative
translations begin with "Or" and generally introduce the alternative with
the last word preceding it in the text, except when it is a single-word
alternative. In poetry quoted in a footnote a slant mark indicates a line
division.
It should be noted that references to
minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, articles of clothing and
jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be
identified with precision. Also measures of capacity in the biblical
period are particularly uncertain. Two changes of special note in the TNIV
New Testament are the frequent substitution of "Messiah" for the more
traditional "Christ" and the replacement of "saints" in most cases with
alternative renderings. A word about each of these is in order.
While both "Messiah" (from the Hebrew)
and "Christ" (from the Greek) mean "Anointed One," what began as a title
full of meaning to the early Jewish hearers of the gospel tended in the
later Greek-speaking churches to become just another name for Jesus. So
where the term is clearly used to designate the God-sent deliverer of
Jewish expectation (primarily in the Gospels and Acts), it was judged more
appropriate to use "Messiah." However, where this sense seems less
prominent (primarily the Epistles), the transliteration of the Greek word
(Christ) has been retained.
Again, they have no desire
for accuracy, and have AT THE TRANSLATORS’ OWN WILL, substituted Hebrew
Words for Greek Words and vice-versa. Why didn’t they just TRANSLATE
THE WORDS that were written down?
Concerning "saints," current usage
(as reflected in major dictionaries of the English language) burdens it
with meanings that lie outside the sense of the original. As used in the
New Testament documents, the Greek term primarily designates those who
have become "followers of the [Christian] Way" as people consecrated to
God and thus belonging to him in a special sense—a meaning derived
especially from Daniel 7:18. Hence the language of choice in most
instances is now "God's people" or "the people of God"—but in some cases
"believers."
Why would they want to attack
the word “Saints”. What could the motivation for such a move
possibly be? We all know that Satan does not want anyone to be described
as saintly, godly, holy, etc. That has been an attack of his in our
current generation for decades now. This is where the world likes to
subject comments about “holier than thou” toward the SAINTS of God.
While a basic core of the English
language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural
forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or
connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the
more programmatic changes in the TNIV is the removal of nearly all
vocative "O"s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use
of masculine nouns and pronouns. Relative to the second of these, the
so-called singular "they/their/them," which has been gaining
acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place
in English idiom, has been employed to fill in the vocabulary gap in
generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings. Where an
individual emphasis is deemed to be present, "anyone" or "everyone" is
generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns.
Diverse
and complex “cultural forces”…oh… you mean like Feminists, Homosexuals
with their own agenda, and the ANTI-Christian crowd? Did you read
that second sentence? There is only
ONE
crowd who hates the “masculine nouns and pronouns”! The militant
FEMINISTS. Human Beings. Have you ever read the Humanist
Manifestos I and II? You should!
Verse numbers
that marked off portions of the traditional English text not supported by
the best Greek manuscripts are now set alongside the immediately
preceding verse numbers and placed in brackets (see, for example, Matthew
17:20 [21]).
Remember several years ago
when SOME translations started putting verses and other items in brackets?
Within a few years, the “brackets” were gone…… and so were the
verses!!!!!! Watch what is to come from these fine folks at the CBT.
As far as using the “best” manuscripts? What they really mean is
that they USED ONLY THE ONES THEY LIKED (Remember the “eclectic”
translation method?)
Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11,
although long accorded virtually equal status with the rest of the Gospels
in which they stand, have a very questionable—and confused—standing
in the textual history of the New Testament, as noted in the bracketed
annotations with which they are set off. A different typeface has now
been chosen for these passages to indicate even more clearly their
uncertain status. The Committee has again been reminded that every
human effort is flawed, including this revision of the NIV. We trust,
however, that many will find in it an improved representation of the Word
of God, through which they hear his call to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
and his guide for service in his kingdom. We offer this version of the New
Testament to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been
made.
“…although long accorded virtually equal status with the rest of the
Gospels…” In other words, we can’t stand these stories and they are
so condemning to us, that we’ve decided to remove them (after all, they’ve
been BRACKETED for years now and our next translation will probably be
accurate and just remove them………don’t believe this can happen? Wait and
see!).
