6 ms·

The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible is by far the worst translation on almost any metric you can think of, except maybe understanding h

by ntdef 2mo ago

The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible is by far the worst translation on almost any metric you can think of, except maybe understanding how evangelical Christians read the Bible in the 90s and 2000s. The NIV has so many inexcusable translations that reinforce a theological worldview that matched the conversation on atonement and justification that was happening in the 90s and 2000s. There's a great catalog out there of the most egregious translations in the NIV [1]. One such example: > Romans 7:18 — The NIV here translates σάρξ (sarx) as “sinful nature” even though this implies later Augustinian doctrine on original sin that is not intended by the original writer. In contrast, the NRSV correctly chooses to translate this tricky Pauline term more literally as “flesh”. Are you interested in a readable Bible that flows well to modern English ears? The New Living Translation (NLT) is fantastic and very underrated. I recommend reading the Psalms in the NLT since much of the language of the Psalms being in a higher register in the NIV and other translations doesn't land as well, but reading the Psalms in NLT makes it much more relatable and human. I find the way it reads refreshing, and it's based on more modern scholarship. Are you interested in latest scholarly understanding of the Bible? The NRSV is the consensus version (as much as there could be one). Are you interested in understanding the Bible as American Evangelical Christians read it today? That's currently the English Standard Version (ESV), which many churches have switched to as the NIV has lost favor in Reformed circles. [1]: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/ https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resource...

agaj-nimm 2mo ago
It's been eye opening to read books from the Old Testament in the word-by-word translation of ancient Hebrew. A lot of the semantic accretion over the millennia comes off and you get a more raw iron age tribal wisdom glowing through. One example is that often Exodus goes from narrative to descriptions of genealogy tree in modern translations. It happens that words interpreted as names of people are also abstract nouns and these passages can also be read as aphorisms. I haven't looked deep into that but it makes way more sense to me that narrative is punctuated by such reflections on "Wisdom unites with Patience and beget Lasting Wealth than breaking into describing marriages and lineages then going back to the story...
- ntdef 2mo ago
  Yes! In that vein, The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter[1] is great for folks who want to get a better sense of what the original Hebrew might feel like rendered in English. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393333930 https://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commenta...
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  I've become intensely interested in the meanings of Biblical names. Of course, names are the words least likely to be translated into a plain meaning, and knowing a name's translation and connotations gives the opportunity to pierce the veil on some very important meanings, meanings that were patently obvious to anyone who actually spoke those languages. Discovering that "Jonah" can mean "dove" was certainly eye-opening. And re-reading that book in light of knowing this, quite interesting! In fact, the OT and NT alike sometimes even drop in-line translation/explanation of a name that they really want us to know. In that case, why not know all of them?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- dev_dan_2 2mo ago
  > descriptions of genealogy That in itself would still make a lot of sense to me though; as far as I know, property and power was mainly transfered through the lines of first born males (so a patriarchy, in the literal sense). If that, social status and so on hinges on who your father, grandfather etc. was, then I think it makes sense for geneology trees to be something important enough to write down, especially in literature that was partially written to capture/produce a peoples cultural identity (i.e. parts of the creation story where written while the jews where forcibly integrated into the babylonian empire, and struggling to keep their own cultural identity. That's another good "use case" for genealogy, I would say.)
  - agaj-nimm 2mo ago
    That's a bit of an oversimplification. I understand the historical value of genealogy but don't assume all past societies were uniformly practicing some form of entail and primogeniture. There is no definitive reading of scripture, there is no definitive version of any of the texts, and I enjoy finding new aspects of their history and interpretation. Realizing that some of the texts that read as genealogy might have been originally a form of poetic aphorism is something I wouldn't affirm to a bible scholar but I enjoy thinking about it. Someone else said a lot of scripture was written as poetry. Imagine people in the year 4500 trying to figure out some fourth hand translation of clippings taken from books by Neruda, Chaucer and Hobsbawm.
burkaman 2mo ago
It is still the most popular English-language version according to https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=BO23 https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id..., so for his goal ("there is no way to understand 21st-century America without understanding the Bible") I think it's the right choice.
frollogaston 2mo ago
I've only ever read KJV and haven't heard of the others. Is the downside that KJV is 1600s English? That particular line: KJV: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. NRSV: For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. NIV: For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. So KJV and NRSV agree.
- rsynnott 2mo ago
  One potential issue is that some English words have changed meaning since it was written, and sometimes in extremely confusing or misleading ways. For instance 'convenient' and 'prevent' used to have radically different meanings.
  - frollogaston 2mo ago
    "Convenient" isn't that different, meant "fitting" back then
    - rsynnott 2mo ago
      I mean I think that's _very_ different. It is _fitting_ to do good works, but it is _convenient_ not to bother.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- KPGv2 2mo ago
  The NIV has as a stated goal to preserve the "infallibility" of the Bible, which means their translation opts for internal consistency over accuracy. I personally think it's the least trustworthy translation, a product specifically of the American evangelical movement in the Boomer heyday. The generation that really hates. The one that supercharged the anti-abortion movement as a direct response to the Supreme Court striking down racial discrimination in (private) schools that receive taxpayer monies. This is all the same group. Bin the NIV.
Yizahi 2mo ago
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible by Steve Wells would be better fitting HN :) https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/bible.php https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/bible.php
mjsweet 2mo ago
I swapped from the NIV to the NLT many years ago. My father’s uncle, J.A. Thompson, was a translator for the NLT and worked on Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes. I really appreciate the way it flows too and it is my daily reading Bible. My wife and I read through the “Daily Bible” by F Lagard Smith (NIV). Now there is an NLT version in paperback. I would love a bonded version, however. Recommended for daily reading in chronological order so you can feel the arc of the story.

by ntdef 2mo ago

agaj-nimm 2mo ago

It's been eye opening to read books from the Old Testament in the word-by-word translation of ancient Hebrew. A lot of the semantic accretion over the millennia comes off and you get a more raw iron age tribal wisdom glowing through. One example is that often Exodus goes from narrative to descriptions of genealogy tree in modern translations. It happens that words interpreted as names of people are also abstract nouns and these passages can also be read as aphorisms. I haven't looked deep into that but it makes way more sense to me that narrative is punctuated by such reflections on "Wisdom unites with Patience and beget Lasting Wealth than breaking into describing marriages and lineages then going back to the story...

ntdef 2mo ago
Yes! In that vein, The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter[1] is great for folks who want to get a better sense of what the original Hebrew might feel like rendered in English. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393333930 https://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commenta...
ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
I've become intensely interested in the meanings of Biblical names. Of course, names are the words least likely to be translated into a plain meaning, and knowing a name's translation and connotations gives the opportunity to pierce the veil on some very important meanings, meanings that were patently obvious to anyone who actually spoke those languages. Discovering that "Jonah" can mean "dove" was certainly eye-opening. And re-reading that book in light of knowing this, quite interesting! In fact, the OT and NT alike sometimes even drop in-line translation/explanation of a name that they really want us to know. In that case, why not know all of them?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
dev_dan_2 2mo ago
> descriptions of genealogy That in itself would still make a lot of sense to me though; as far as I know, property and power was mainly transfered through the lines of first born males (so a patriarchy, in the literal sense). If that, social status and so on hinges on who your father, grandfather etc. was, then I think it makes sense for geneology trees to be something important enough to write down, especially in literature that was partially written to capture/produce a peoples cultural identity (i.e. parts of the creation story where written while the jews where forcibly integrated into the babylonian empire, and struggling to keep their own cultural identity. That's another good "use case" for genealogy, I would say.)
- agaj-nimm 2mo ago
  That's a bit of an oversimplification. I understand the historical value of genealogy but don't assume all past societies were uniformly practicing some form of entail and primogeniture. There is no definitive reading of scripture, there is no definitive version of any of the texts, and I enjoy finding new aspects of their history and interpretation. Realizing that some of the texts that read as genealogy might have been originally a form of poetic aphorism is something I wouldn't affirm to a bible scholar but I enjoy thinking about it. Someone else said a lot of scripture was written as poetry. Imagine people in the year 4500 trying to figure out some fourth hand translation of clippings taken from books by Neruda, Chaucer and Hobsbawm.

burkaman 2mo ago

It is still the most popular English-language version according to https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=BO23 https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id..., so for his goal ("there is no way to understand 21st-century America without understanding the Bible") I think it's the right choice.

frollogaston 2mo ago

I've only ever read KJV and haven't heard of the others. Is the downside that KJV is 1600s English? That particular line: KJV: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. NRSV: For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. NIV: For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. So KJV and NRSV agree.

rsynnott 2mo ago
One potential issue is that some English words have changed meaning since it was written, and sometimes in extremely confusing or misleading ways. For instance 'convenient' and 'prevent' used to have radically different meanings.
- frollogaston 2mo ago
  "Convenient" isn't that different, meant "fitting" back then
  - rsynnott 2mo ago
    I mean I think that's _very_ different. It is _fitting_ to do good works, but it is _convenient_ not to bother.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
KPGv2 2mo ago
The NIV has as a stated goal to preserve the "infallibility" of the Bible, which means their translation opts for internal consistency over accuracy. I personally think it's the least trustworthy translation, a product specifically of the American evangelical movement in the Boomer heyday. The generation that really hates. The one that supercharged the anti-abortion movement as a direct response to the Supreme Court striking down racial discrimination in (private) schools that receive taxpayer monies. This is all the same group. Bin the NIV.

Yizahi 2mo ago

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible by Steve Wells would be better fitting HN :) https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/bible.php https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/bible.php

mjsweet 2mo ago

I swapped from the NIV to the NLT many years ago. My father’s uncle, J.A. Thompson, was a translator for the NLT and worked on Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes. I really appreciate the way it flows too and it is my daily reading Bible. My wife and I read through the “Daily Bible” by F Lagard Smith (NIV). Now there is an NLT version in paperback. I would love a bonded version, however. Recommended for daily reading in chronological order so you can feel the arc of the story.