(Series
Part Two)
Introduction
My son
recently purchased a green Ford Ranger as his first actual vehicle, including a
manual transmission. In the process, he paid cash for the vehicle. It is a
truck of course with all the bells and whistles that come with a owning a
truck. Now suppose I start critiquing my son’s newly purchased truck. First, I
start criticizing the fact that his truck gets less that 55 miles per gallon,
is bad for the environment, and might cause someone somewhere to lose sleep
about global warning. Second, suppose I also compare his truck to my red car
stating my red car doesn’t blend in with the trees. Third, I get upset he can’t
earn any credit for paying cash for his truck, because having good credit is so
important. I can proceed to criticize his wide tires, standard transmission, or
any other item that makes my car look so much better. But here’s the
point: my son could have bought a car, but he didn’t. Why? He can’t put a dirt
bike in the trunk of his clean red Honda Accord.
Argument
So many of
the attacks against the New International Version (regardless of the year and
edition). And to be fair even the ESV has undergone multiple editions (and yes
the text is actually different in places). Any of the arguments used to attack
or critique the NIV can easily be applied to any other English translation.
Consider some examples before we look at actual examples. All these examples
appear in explanations of why somebody’s church switched to the ESV. Let’s be
clear though, I read the ESV every day including much Greek text study. So I’m
not critiquing the ESV, NASB, or KJV, I’m making the point: let’s be consistent and not plead
for double standards.
As mentioned
in the previous article, we can criticize translation philosophies of any
translation (compare any two English translations: NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV,
RSV). They each will make choices and anyone can simply list all the
differences with your favorite translation. Who determines what translation
philosophy is more biblical? Which one “really” believes in plenary verbal
inspiration? Do we really want to go down the road that only certain positions
consistently believe in biblical inerrancy?
We can
identify English gloss inconsistencies in the same context as though it’s a
fault. Quite frankly the same charges made toward the NIV could easily be made
toward the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, or RSV. Simply look at the underlying Greek
text and see if they consistently translate the same word the same way in each
context. The truth is they don’t. This is simply not consistent. This line of
reasoning assumes it is best to translate the same Greek word the same way when
it appears in a similar context. Obviously, multiple committees didn’t think so
now or in the past.
Let’s move
on to adding or subtracting words from the English text. Every English
translation (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NIV) includes phrases and/or terms they
think best reflects the underlying Greek or Hebrew text. The NIV and obviously
any English translation which did chose the words you would have used is of
course wrong. Add to many words: wrong. Don’t use enough words: wrong. You lose
both ways. No one maintains a word for word pattern. No one can win with this
everchanging standard. Can we at least admit we simply compare their favorite
English translation with the NIV? If we want to list all the additions and
subtractions, let’s at least be consistent and list the ones in your own pew or
pulpit.
This is the
last one I’ll address in this article. The charge is simple: Preaching is just
not as easy with the NIV. This is actually contrary to the very reason the NIV
translators produced the NIV. Older translations were harder to understand for
preaching and evangelism. To be fair and accurate, I’ve listened to scores of
sermons from multiple churches and preachers and this critique is just not
fair. Thousands of sermons are listened to each year, all claiming to be
expository sermons. Quite frankly the English text they used for their sermon
outline, preaching applications, or even illustrations had nothing to do with
the underlying text. I’m actually surprised to see the number of supposedly
expository sermons which go no further than quoting scripture or simply
rereading sections of the text. This argument is simply not consistent.
Conclusion
None of the
complaints made toward the New International Version are consistent. They could
easily be applied to any English translation of the Bible. Translation philosophy is simply a straw man to attack. Using more words or less words in a
translation is simply not consistent. Finally, based on hundreds of sermons I’ve
personally heard from evangelicals themselves, the exact text wording has no
effect on the outcome of their supposedly expository sermons. Thus far I have
been less than impressed with the inconsistently applied standards for
attacking or critiquing the New International version. But don’t worry we’ll
still address the so-called gender-neutral attack on the NIV. Whatever standard
we use to criticize the NIV is fair game to also criticize the chosen preferred
translation of others. We’ll see how well they stand up.
