Most Subtle Apologetics Yet...the NIV!

While reading a parody site (catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php ), I came across the following:

The need for a Doctrinal Equivalence approach was made clear to us when we were attempting to deal with the difficult question of the New Testament teaching on “tradition.” We know that all tradition is bad, but unfortunately, the Greek word for tradition, paradosis, is sometimes used to refer to something good. We were at a loss as to how to make the true teaching on tradition clear in our translation until one of the members of the committee brought to our attention the strategy used by the translators of the New International Version (NIV). In that translation, we discovered that whenever paradosis refers to something bad (Matt. 15:2-3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8), it is translated as “tradition,” but whenever it refers to something good (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), it is translated as “teaching.”

Because I couldn’t believe the NIV translators actually did this, I pulled out my “Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshal”, and sure enough…this is completely true! This is by far the most insidious and subtle apologetics technique I have come across yet.

Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?

The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is probably the worst one. They’ve taken out or rewritten any passage that refers to the divinity of Christ. This, along with other passages that conform to thier own spiritual beliefs.

watchtower.org/bible/index.htm%between%

[quote=Subrosa]The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is probably the worst one. They’ve taken out or rewritten any passage that refers to the divinity of Christ. This, along with other passages that conform to thier own spiritual beliefs.

watchtower.org/bible/index.htm%between%
[/quote]

This is an accusation made by Trinitarian apologists, but I’ve never seen a serious scholar affirm it. On the contrary, scholars have praised the NWT for its accuracy. You can find this on the Watchtower website.

Of course the NWT is biased; but then, so are all Bible translations, even Catholic ones. No one denies this.

[quote=RyanL]While reading a parody site (catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php ), I came across the following:

Because I couldn’t believe the NIV translators actually did this, I pulled out my “Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshal”, and sure enough…this is completely true! This is by far the most insidious and subtle apologetics technique I have come across yet.

Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?
[/quote]

I am Catholic but have always loved using my NIV Study Bible as a tool for proselytizing, because of the extensive cross-referencing and generally well-balanced footnoting; I can reach “them” better if I understand what “they” think and why.

I’m going to have to check this out.

I would also bring to your attention another strategy used by the translators of the New International Version (NIV). You will also see that whenever “works” are used in the New Testament in the sense of “works on your own” or a “bad” sense they are simply referred to in the NIV as “works”. But when they are in a good sense such as works done in grace (James 2 for example), the translators change the exact same Greek word to “deeds.”

This may not sound like a big deal, but if you are a College student and the guy at InterVarsity fellowship hands you an NIV concordance in front of a group challenging you to “show us where the Bible teaches the necessity of ‘works’” he/she may be in a quandary.

May I recommend the ESV (English Standard Version). Unfortunately it doesn’t contain the Apocrypha yet, but it is a very well done translation of the Bible.

esv.org/

[quote=Sacramentalist]This is an accusation made by Trinitarian apologists, but I’ve never seen a serious scholar affirm it. On the contrary, scholars have praised the NWT for its accuracy. You can find this on the Watchtower website.

Of course the NWT is biased; but then, so are all Bible translations, even Catholic ones. No one denies this.
[/quote]

Look at John8;58. Look at how the new world translation translates it. It should say, “before Abraham was made, I AM.” The New World Translation says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

That alone is a huge difference. It changes a present verb into a perfect verb. It also changes it so that it can not match what God said in the OT. Look at their translation of 1John too, it cuts out verse 7 in chapter 5. Look at their translation of John1. Especially the first few verses. Look at verse 2 where it adds the word “one”, which changes the whole meaning of the sentence. It makes it sound like there is another.

This translation is from hell. It changes the bible to deny the divinity of Christ.

[quote=RyanL]While reading a parody site (catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php ), I came across the following:

Because I couldn’t believe the NIV translators actually did this, I pulled out my “Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshal”, and sure enough…this is completely true! This is by far the most insidious and subtle apologetics technique I have come across yet.

Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?
[/quote]

I am guessing that is the same Gary Hoge(the person runninng the site) that Sungenis debates. From what I have seen so far it does not seem like a parody. It seems pretty serious. But I have only looked at a few things.

If you really want a close to exact translation from the Greek to English you can look for the Lattimore translation of the bible. but only use it with another bible, because it doesn’t have verse numbers…

The best translation for fewest additions and changes is really The New American Bible. It is translated from the Egyptian Manuscripts which are the oldest known surviving bibles. There are two of them known to still exist from when Emperor Constitine had them put together. One is in the vatican library, the other is in a British museum.

The King James and even many Catholic bibles still use sources from the Middle Age translations which have had many things added to them over the years.

Examples: Luke 1:28-29, 1:42; Luke 11 to name a few. Compare this to The New American Bible.

Greater examples are in the OT, how else could it be that many of the protestant bibles have fewer books in the OT but more words?

Wow, I had NO IDEA the NIV had done this sort of thing.

I was of the impression the NIV was a pretty faithful translation. How wrong I was! Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

[quote=RyanL]While reading a parody site (catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php ), I came across the following:

Because I couldn’t believe the NIV translators actually did this, I pulled out my “Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshal”, and sure enough…this is completely true! This is by far the most insidious and subtle apologetics technique I have come across yet.

Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?
[/quote]

In reference to the translation of chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians in the King James Version, the Haydock Commentary of 1859 says:I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues unknown, though the word unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators, for tongues, have put unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make no such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says, I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says, forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches [of using Latin or ancient Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, etc. in the liturgy instead of the vernacular]. (Witham)

[quote=Cathoholic]I would also bring to your attention another strategy used by the translators of the New International Version (NIV). You will also see that whenever “works” are used in the New Testament in the sense of “works on your own” or a “bad” sense they are simply referred to in the NIV as “works”. But when they are in a good sense such as works done in grace (James 2 for example), the translators change the exact same Greek word to “deeds.”
[/quote]

HA! You’re right on this as well! Those scoundrals!

James 2:20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without **deeds (Gk: ergon) **is useless?
James 2:22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did (Gk: ergois)… 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does (Gk: ergon) and not by faith alone.

Rom 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (Gk: ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works (Gk: ergon):

Thank you, Cathoholic for pointing this out! I am now amazed that the NIV gets credit for being a “translation”! It’s a theological paraphrase!

[quote=Todd Easton] the Haydock Commentary of 1859 says:
[/quote]

A bit antiquated, perhaps, but I can see where they are going with this. Even so, it seems like more of a “mountain out of a molehill” scenario…of course, I say that without hearing how people of the day were preaching 1 Cor 14. It could very well be that “unknown tongues”/Latin was the “jack chick silliness” of the mid-1800s…

RyanL

Example of New World Translation anti-Deity of Christ bias:

The insertion of the word “other” in brackets in selected places:

Colossians 1:15-20
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.(emphasis added)
**Note: **Implies, or leaves open the possibility, that Jesus Himself is a created being

Phillipians 2:9
9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name… (emphasis added)
**Note: **Obscures the fact that Jesus shares the Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) with the Father

An example of other doctrinal bias:
**
Hebrews 12:22-23**
22 But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, 23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect (emphasis added)
Note: This reads “…the spirits of righteous ones…” in other Bibles. This was apparantly done to conform to the Witness view of the state of the dead. Notice that no brackets are used here on the word “lives”, which would tip off the reader that the word is not supported in the Greek text.

These are just a few examples. As far as what serious scholars think of the NWT, typing in the word “Metzger” (for Bruce Metzger) and “New World Translation” into a search engine will bring up some interesting hits.

[quote=RyanL]HA! You’re right on this as well! Those scoundrals!

Thank you, Cathoholic for pointing this out! I am now amazed that the NIV gets credit for being a “translation”! It’s a theological paraphrase!

RyanL
[/quote]

Cathoholic? LOL!!! Where’s my bottle of holy water? I thought I had some hidden around here!:rotfl:

Sorry! Off subject. LOL!

Here’s another difference from the New World Translation

New American Bible

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily

New World Translation

Colossians 2:9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily

Hi Subrosa. Here’s another one:

John 14:14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (NWT)
**
Note: **The Westcott & Hort Greek text of the New Testament, which was said to be the text used for the NWT (and which is the Greek text that is used in the WT Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation) supports the reading “…if you ask Me anything in my name, I will do it.” (*emphasis added). *This is the reading in the New American Standard Bible, and others. Yet, there is no footnote in the NWT translation to show that this pronoun, which appears in the Westcott & Hort text, has been left out. Apparantly done to support the Witness belief that prayer to Christ is wrong. With a *Kingdom Interlinear Translation *in hand, it can be easily seen.

Again, only a few examples have been given.

All I can say is WOW corruption! We don’t like the proper word so we’re not going to use it no matter what God had the holy writers write.

[quote=thessalonian]All I can say is WOW corruption! We don’t like the proper word so we’re not going to use it no matter what God had the holy writers write.
[/quote]

Pretty scary, but…

I’m not going to be too quick to judge their actual intent. After all, translators often must substitute multiple english words for the greek in order to achieve the most precise meaning of the original text. In order to do that, you have to know what the text means, which is precisely what is in debate between Ps and Cs. I would very much like to believe they were simply trying to be as precise as possible, not trying to willfully deceive anyone. After all, they assuredly believed that the protestant interpretation of what the text means is absolutely correct, and don’t want to mislead anyone by translating “ambiguously”.

But it is in their very pride of doctrinal assurance that they fail to authentically proclaim the Sacred Scriptures.

Peace,
javelin

[quote=At His Feet]Hi Subrosa. Here’s another one:

John 14:14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (NWT)
**
Note: **The Westcott & Hort Greek text of the New Testament, which was said to be the text used for the NWT (and which is the Greek text that is used in the WT Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation) supports the reading “…if you ask Me anything in my name, I will do it.” (*emphasis added). *This is the reading in the New American Standard Bible, and others. Yet, there is no footnote in the NWT translation to show that this pronoun, which appears in the Westcott & Hort text, has been left out. Apparantly done to support the Witness belief that prayer to Christ is wrong. With a *Kingdom Interlinear Translation *in hand, it can be easily seen.

Again, only a few examples have been given.
[/quote]

I don’t this is necessarily a deliberate plot. The Jerusalem Bible omits the “me” but the New Jerusalem Bible includes it. You can’t say the the original JB translators were trying to distort the text.

[quote=javelin]Pretty scary, but…

I’m not going to be too quick to judge their actual intent. After all, translators often must substitute multiple english words for the greek in order to achieve the most precise meaning of the original text. In order to do that, you have to know what the text means, which is precisely what is in debate between Ps and Cs. I would very much like to believe they were simply trying to be as precise as possible, not trying to willfully deceive anyone. After all, they assuredly believed that the protestant interpretation of what the text means is absolutely correct, and don’t want to mislead anyone by translating “ambiguously”.

But it is in their very pride of doctrinal assurance that they fail to authentically proclaim the Sacred Scriptures.

Peace,
javelin
[/quote]

In some sense the translation from a language standpoint is valid since Protestants are trained to take the word tradition in a negative light. Thus in some sense the word does not have the same meaning for them that it does for us in truth. And the word teaching is not wrong as a tradition is a teaching but a persistent one from generation to generation so I don’t have a huge problem with them using the word teaching. The word does not capture all the meaning of the original but it is not wrong. But when they openly admit that tradition is the real word and the word tradition is beyond what teaching means then they are denying some of the meaning of the text, implicitly. Very dangerous. Malicous, perhaps not, but no less dangerous and it is certainly not submissive to the word of God.

Blessings

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.