Posted by:
Nightingale
(
)
Date: August 10, 2013 02:04PM
I was just reading about translation of the NIV. (Not that that makes me an expert, just a novice when it comes to knowing much about the translation process, although I'm very interested in it).
But I haven't heard of anything being "taken out" of the NIV. Who is it discussing this - Mormons? I have found that many Mormons do not have a lot of knowledge about the Bible - they only "study" it formally every four years (for a year) but even then it's not necessarily taught by knowledgeable people with anything approaching a scholarly background.
People may have talking points about a particular Bible translation or contents but may have no deeper understanding or knowledge of it.
What do they mean about 40 things taken out of the KJV?
One thing that struck me about the NIV was that its translation committee was comprised of scholars from a variety of denominations, including Brethren, Mennonite Brethren, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican, "to prevent a sectarian bias". I approve of that approach!
The foreword in the NIV speaks of "revision" and "correction" that the translation committee has undertaken (from its previous translation a few years earlier). Again, I find this to be transparent and reassuring in that they are open about their process and its results and to hearing opinions from other scholars about decisions they themselves have made in the translation process in producing their NIV and its various updates.
In the NIV, there are also added chapter headings (in italics) as well as bracketed portions with explanation for passages that may remain not completely clear (as translation is not an exact science). In addition, there are footnotes explaining further information or uncertainty re translation of some terms.
Some people may wish to regard these inevitabilities of a scholarly and transparent translation approach as "additions" or "subtractions" to or from the text.
Perhaps that is where these people get their "40" subtractions from the KJV re the NIV? I'd start by ascertaining that first and then try to answer from there. They should give examples of what exactly they are considering to be a subtraction. The NIV, for instance, changes "God of Hosts" to "God Almighty", as its translation committee explains they were seeking more clarity for the modern reader. If you counted that alone, it could easily add up to hundreds of "changes".
For me, a "change" would consist of a substantive difference from the original in meaning or content. Those, in my admittedly non-scholarly existence, are *very* few and far between, if any at all. A translation committee would hardly make wholesale inaccurate changes when outsiders would easily spot and decry and denounce the result. Unless you're talking The WatchTower Society - JWs - and their "New World Translation", that is - but that's another story - one famous example being John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God." (NIV). The WTS translates John 1:1 in their unique NWT as "...and the Word was ***a*** God", adding the article "a" to allow for their doctrine of God the Father and God the Son being two separate beings, hence, no Trinity. The entire mass of non-JW biblical scholars has called them out on this "translation" because they did not follow accepted translation protocol in arriving at their decision to insert an "a" in that verse. Instead, they considered their own settled doctrine first and translated the scripture accordingly - instead of the other way around - it should be translation first, interpretation/doctrine next, arising from the correctly translated passage of scripture. Famously, Raymond Franz, grandson of the WTS's presiding leader at the time, left the organization over the flawed translation process. He wrote a book about his experience as a JW i which he revealed the blatant dishonesty in the WT's translation of their own version of the Bible. Upon that one scripture alone they hooked not only their own people onto their own dogma (i.e., no Trinity, Jesus was created, not eternal) but a vast number of converts as well. (Which shows that the approach taken to translation is crucial, although not many adherents to any particular belief system take an interest in it or are knowledgeable about it, taking it on faith, so to speak). This revelation in Franz's book shocked me, even as an ex-JW. It is this type of dishonesty from leaders that sears the soul of the faithful, or previously faithful, adherent. It is difficult for honest believers to accept, or even see, that their leaders can be outright dishonest, for nefarious reasons, such as to keep the "sheep" in line for the gain of the organization and/or its leaders.
What I have found, with Mormons also, is that claims like these (that there have been 40 changes, etc) are usually found to be spurious in that no clearly scholarly, honest, and transparent translation effort purposely leaves out portions or adds to the text. However, it is perhaps inevitable that revisions and corrections are necessary even after a momentous effort at translation. Depending on what these are (such as a more accurate word choice or noun/verb usage or choice of tense) people may have their disagreements with some choices made by any translator or translation committee.
What prompted this FB discussion of the NIV in particular, at this time, I wonder.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2013 02:10PM by Nightingale.