NIV

Return to Archive Topical Index

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
(Some Observations)

        As I read this material the first thing that I realized was that I had read it before. I have a copy of the book by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. titled A Review of the New Versions. I had read and digested this book several years ago.

        I will share with you some observations that I made as I looked at the material on the N.I.V. I believe that you will see at least five types of criticisms to this version of the Bible.

Proper Warning

        Without question there are flaws in this version of the Bible. To my knowledge, EVERY translation of the bible in English has some flaws, doctrinal errors and error of translation that should be exposed. Such flaws, inaccuracy, and error need to be pointed out and addressed. The NIV has some errors that need to be pointed out. Red flags need to wave over such passages.

        EXAMPLE: 32) Romans 8 AND MANY OTHER PASSAGES. In almost every place that Paul mentions the "flesh" the NIV says "sinful nature." Such a translation is wrong. It is doctrinal error that should be pointed out and corrected. Foy Wallace is correct in this matter.
        This is, in my view, the most glaring error in the NIV. It needs to be pointed out. When anyone reads from the NIV they should be aware of this term.

Preference, Beauty

        Some of the objections that are raised about the NIV are matters of how he likes the sound of the language. These are not valid reasons to reject a translation. They may be valid reasons for an individual to decide not to use that version. It is not valid to ask all to reject a translation because it uses phrases that I do not like.

        EXAMPLES:
        49) II Cor. 11:5 The translation is not wrong. He objects to how it sounds.
        50) He objects to the word "fool" being replaced by the phrase "out of his mind." He has already quoted Vine's several times. Why does he not quote Vine's here? Because Vine's says, "without reason, (a, negative, phren, the mind), want of mental sanity and sobriety." Nothing is wrong with the phrase "out of his mind."
        65) He says this "sounds like a Catholic order."
        68) He prefers "not in words only" to "not simply in words." He prefers "much assurance" to "deep conviction."
        72) Wallace says that this translation lacks the "excellence of expression."
        77) He objects to the change here as a "crude expletive." He says, "Such writing!"
        80) The objection here is to the simplicity of the language. He says the language is "kindergarten level" and has a "childish style."
        82) Without any specifics he objects to the changes in the style of the letter to Philemon.

Interpretation Not Translation

        Some of the objections to the NIV are not a flaw in the translation but a problem of interpretation of the text. The same problem exists in the KJV or any other translation. It is important that these passages be studied and properly understood. But changing translations does not solve the difficulty with the text.

        EXAMPLES:
        3) The problem in Matthew 5:17 is not over the words "abolish" vs. "destroy." The problem is one of interpretation of the passage. If one uses the proper rules of hermeneutics this passage can be clearly understood. Vine says, "The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being."
        12) John 14:1-2 is not a problem because of the translation. The problem is one of interpretation. Vine's says, "primarily a staying, abiding."
        30) KJV "counted" and NIV "credited". The next two pages deal with the proper understanding of this text.
        44) Here is another passage that is not mis-translated. KJV "baptized for the dead" NIV "baptism for deceased persons" The problem is one of proper interpretation.
        55) Gal. 1:15 Same point.
        81) Titus 3:4-5 Same here.
        87) Heb. 8:8 The statement is an illustration of the point under discussion. When anything begins to decay it is ready to vanish (KJV) or disappear (NIV).
        104) The text has been abused by the Baptists and requires proper understanding. The problem is not one of translation in the NIV. It is a matter of proper interpretation of the text.
        107) The same point is valid here in Rev. 20:4.

Baseless

        Foy Wallace makes objections to points that have no merit in fact. They are figments of his imagination. The facts are not correct as he presents them. (It is my personal view, because this book was written very late in his long life, that he lost some touch with reality. Call it senile. Call it bitterness. I believe that the sound, rational and scholarly study that is clearly evident in earlier books and debates is missing in this work.)

        EXAMPLES:
        4) It is not true that PORNEIA is translated "fornication" and "adultery" in this verse. The word translated "adultery" is the Greek word MOICHEUO.
        10) Many translations are wrong here. They try to eliminate Jesus as the "Only" begotten of God. Wallace says, "MONO means "only" or "one"." The NIV says "one and only." What is wrong with that?
        31) Wallace objects to the change from "debt" (KJV) to "obligation" (NIV). Then Wallace uses both words in the same sentence. "The NIV reads as if to mean that in our doing of anything to be saved the Savior would be under obligation to the sinner, that is salvation would be a matter of debt, which would make God a debtor to man."
        36) Here (and many other places) Wallace objects to the term "brothers" instead of "brethren." The fact is that neither term is male to the exclusion of female. The term is one of "relationship" not of "sex".
        42) The fact is that the term here is an athletic term that describes one who does not meet the requirements. In the Olympics, Ben Johnson was tested for drugs and failed the test. He was "disqualified for the prize."
        62) He does not make any objection to the NIV here. There is not any objection to be made.
        64) Wallace objects to the omission of "things" in Phil. 4:8. The Greek text does not have the word "things" in it. This is an addition of the KJV for clarification. It is not wrong to insert nor is it wrong to omit.
        92) The point to watch here is when a translation tries to make the kingdom "future." The NIV does not do that. In fact it is clearer in the use of the present tense than is the KJV. "We are receiving a kingdom" shows the present active tense of the original text.
        99) The word "virtue" means "moral excellence". There is nothing wrong with "goodness" in this verse.
        103) Wallace argues that the word "propitiation" should not be removed from the text. The word means "atoning sacrifice." Very few Christians could tell you the meaning of "propitiation". Most could explain the meaning of "atoning sacrifice."

English Vs. Greek

        While some of the time Foy Wallace will go to the Greek language or to a work like Vine's to support his point, many times he just makes an argument on the English words used. This is like making an argument on "for" in Acts 2:38 based on how we use the word today.

        EXAMPLES:
        7) AND MANY OTHER PLACES Wallace finds cause to object to the change from "of" to "about". While he may prefer one word over another. It is a matter of English. It is not a matter of translation from Greek. In Greek, the preposition is often left open. You will find a dative noun. The dative can be translated by "of, from, about, concerning" and many other prepositions.
        74) "I will" (KJV) vs. "I want" (NIV) is a matter of English not Greek. In Greek either is proper.
        90) Every phrase to which he finds fault is properly translated. This point could go in the area of baseless objections.
        95) God's elect are "God's chosen". He only finds fault with the English words. There is not any basis in fact or the Greek text for such a denunciation.
        104) The fact of the matter is that in this passage the NIV is more correct than the KJV. The KJV uses the phrase "every one that doeth righteousness." This places the action in the past tense with the results ("is born of God") in the present tense. The NIV places both in the past tense. "Everyone who does what is right has been born of God."

Conclusions
        Every translation that comes along should be viewed with honesty. Foy Wallace did not deal honestly with the NIV. Are there errors in the NIV? YES! Are there errors in the KJV? YES! The point is that in each translation we must be made aware of the errors.
        Objections to a translation because it does not flow with the beauty and poetry of the KJV is not valid. The real issue is a question of "Did the translators deal honestly with the original Greek text?" I believe that in most cases the translators of the NIV did deal properly with the original text. The same is true of the KJV.

        I believe that translations should be used on the basis of the following criteria:

        1. Standard work of a committee. Do not use a "one man" or "one denomination" work.
        2. The test of time. I would wait for 15 or 20 years and make sure that time was given to study the weaknesses. This will also give time for other tools to come on the market. A new translation without a good concordance is not helpful.
        3. Personal preference. After meeting the first two criteria, it becomes a matter personal taste, education, vocabulary and preference.