The 2011 NIV and John MacArthur

[biscuit1953]

There was a thread some time back on what people here thought of John MacArthur publishing a study bible that  used the 2011 NIV.  My current church uses the 1984 NIV almost exclusively but some are starting to realize that there are some notable changes in the newest edition compared to the 1984 version.  I was troubled when I heard the news because I have learned to greatly respect MacArthur's teaching.  After watching this video I now understand why he made the decision to put his notes on what he considers to be an inferior bible translation.  One humorous remark he makes when asked about this controversy is, "Does anybody who reads the NIV care what it means?"
John MacArthur on the NIV and other Controversies

 

[FSSL]

Yes. MacArthur is completely absurd about the NIV. It is a great translation. I knew from the time his Study Bible came out in the NASB, from inside sources, that he didn't like the NIV and wouldn't allow for his notes to be included. That is, until now.

He admits this, publicly, in 2012. He knows the NASB was limited in distribution to the US. Seeing that he could make more, by going world-wide, he could make far more profit.

His "surprise" about the NIV publisher not allowing him to correct the text in the notes is feigned. Do you realize how many different NIV Study Bibles exist? They cover the whole gamut of Christianity.

I like MacArthur, but he can be over-the-top, and this time he certainly is.

 

[biscuit1953]

At the time I heard MacArthur was going ahead with that project I was still in the process of stepping away from KJV Onlyism.  I also believe the NIV is a good translation but still have a hard time with the philosophy of translating mainly thought for thought since it does lend itself to more of a commentary format than recording the actual words used if possible.  It is hard to do a word study when only a thought is brought out.  Also, it is no secret that the 2011 NIV strives to be politically correct at the expense of what was actually said.  Egalitarianism.

 

[Izdaari]

I like the 2011 NIV better than the 1984. But then I like the TNIV better than the 1984, and the 2011 is essentially a compromise between the two. And honestly, I probably still like the TNIV better than the 2011 NIV as well, but I'm not familiar enough with the new one to be sure.

I'm surprised that MacArthur would go ahead with the project, but glad that he's showing a little bit of flexibility. "My way or the highway" has been his biggest fault.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I like MacArthur's NASB Study Bible I have used it for years.
All of the NIV editions are reliable translations in spite of the derogatory comments from One Version Onlyists.

 

[Izdaari]

I like MacArthur's NASB Study Bible I have used it for years.
All of the NIV editions are reliable translations in spite of the derogatory comments from One Version Onlyists.

I have that one, and it's pretty good - but MacArthur's habit of passing his opinions off as the only possible interpretation drives me up the wall sometimes.

 

[biscuit1953]

I like MacArthur's NASB Study Bible I have used it for years.
All of the NIV editions are reliable translations in spite of the derogatory comments from One Version Onlyists.

I agree wholeheartedly, though one does not have to be a one version onlyist to recognize that translating what someone thinks is said is different than translating what was actually said.  I love the NIV.  I might add also that changing a text to satisfy a political correctness agenda is unsatisfactory.

 

[rsc2a]

I like MacArthur's NASB Study Bible I have used it for years.
All of the NIV editions are reliable translations in spite of the derogatory comments from One Version Onlyists.

I agree wholeheartedly, though one does not have to be a one version onlyist to recognize that translating what someone thinks is said is different than translating what was actually said.

But it's also important to recognize that all translation efforts are a combination of both.

[quote author=biscuit1953]I might add also that changing a text to satisfy a political correctness agenda is unsatisfactory.
[/quote]

And, on this, I absolutely agree.

 

[FSSL]

Also, it is no secret that the 2011 NIV strives to be politically correct at the expense of what was actually said.  Egalitarianism.

Actually, I don't see evidence of this. Could it be that your opinion is clouded by the TNIV and NIVI?

I find the 2011 to be quite refreshing and not over-reaching the language to be egalitarian. Do you have any examples?

 

[biscuit1953]

Also, it is no secret that the 2011 NIV strives to be politically correct at the expense of what was actually said.  Egalitarianism.

Actually, I don't see evidence of this. Could it be that your opinion is clouded by the TNIV and NIVI?

I find the 2011 to be quite refreshing and not over-reaching the language to be egalitarian. Do you have any examples?

I may very well be confusing the TNIV with the 2011 edition.  I don't know.  I have read online that the 2011 edition rolls back some of the "gender neutral" language to what the 1984 edition used so maybe I'm getting crossed up.  As I have stated I really love the NIV since the vast majority of people in the church I attend use it and it is used almost exclusively from the pulpit.  I do understand that no translation is completely word for word.

Just one example of how the 1984 edition was changed.

  Here is Psalm 8:4 in the NIV 2011:

    what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?[c]

Here is the quotation of Psalm 8:4 in Hebrews 2:6 in the NIV 2011:

    “What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    a son of man that you care for him?

If you like changes like that its fine with me.  I simply don't.

 

[FSSL]

That is an inconsistency. I agree that it should have been the same... but it is a non-issue to me.

I, personally, like the reading of the Psalm 8 where the collective noun is represented. It makes the Hebrew parallelism, a clear parallel in English.

I thought you may have had an issue with something like this in Acts 17:34

NIV 1984
A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

NIV 2011
Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus,b also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.