Is the NIV a 'Woke' Bible Translation?

*NOTES & RESOURCES*

(1) MY CHURCH

(2) PODCASTS

(4) MY BOOKS:
Unknown: The Extraordinary Influence of Ordinary Christians -
The Lord and the Rings: Bible Study and Counseling Guide

(4) SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter - @matt_everhard
Instagram - matthew_everhard
Email Me: doctor + everhard (all one word) at gmail dot you know

(5) APPAREL

(6) MY STUDIO & BACKGROUND

Note - this channel contains affiliate links.

[PaintingWithMagic]

I use the NIV 2011 as my main Bible and so I contacted the folks at NIV "Hi Brandon. Thanks for reaching out with your question on the use of "weakling" vs. "women" in Jeremiah 51:30. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, women were considered weaker and they did not become soldiers or fight in conflicts. Our own culture today, with women participating in armies around the world, demands a different word to get the same idea across: hence “weaklings.” The NIV balances both accuracy and meaning to provide a translation of the Bible that is clear and understandable to today's readers. I hope this helps answer your question."

[PastorJerett]

My wife and I came to faith reading the 1984 NIV translation. I was sad when they made the 2011 update without make it clear to people and then made 1984 edition no longer available. In Seminary, I changed to 1995 NASB, and now I preach from the LSB. However, my wife still likes reading her 1984 NIV. She found an old one at church but is deciding what she is going to when that Bible wares out. At this point, I think the NLT is better than the NIV. I always encourage people to move to a word for word translation like the LSB, ESV, and NKJV.

[DavidWesleyDonnan]

I'd be interested to hear Dr. Bill Mounce's take on this since he served on ESV and NIV translation teams. I preach from the NIV because it is what most of my people have already. My goal is to have them with their bibles open during the sermon and following along. There are several times I will point out where I think another translation captures the meaning more accurately. Sometimes the ESV captures it better sometimes something like the CEB does to my surprise. All editors make interpretive decisions at some point. The best thing for clergy and laity is to read form multiple translations, steer mostly away from single editor translations, and consider tools to look at original languages. Thanks for the video Dr. Everhard.

[Billster]

I've watched a couple of your bible reviews and enjoy them. I got saved in 1979 in a Wesleyan church. A year later we moved away and found a Nazarene church near bye, which is similar in beliefs. Over the years we've had pastors that preached from the KJV, NKJV, and NIV bibles. So, I have all three and access to many others in electronic format. I'm happy that both of my NIV bibles copywrite dates are 1983. Both are Thomson Chain-Reference Bibles, and one is in large print as I'm now 68 years old.

[JTHill-edqe]

I started with a NIV11 when I came to Christ because my dad had the 84 but neither of us knew 2 years back that their had been the change til we realized it wasn't matching up. Found out about all the gender neutral language and other issues. After looking into other translations I switched to ESV. I also use a KJV at times but ESV to me is the best. It's very true word for word while kinda using the KJV Elizabethian with updated language which makes it flow beautifully. It's just the best I have found and I've looked into most of the English translations.

[Presby]

I used to bounce around translations quite a bit early on in my walk.
These days I tend to stick with just a handful and switch / rotate everytime I finish a reading plan. LSB, ESV,
KJV / NKJV

[davidhiramreyes]

I’m 28 years old & use the NKJV.

Just my 2 cents here, to a modern reader, “weakling” is a more understandable translation.
(1) NOT because “women” would be offensive but because (2) woman are no longer looked at as weak.

[vivi_t]

Thank you for this video. I started my Christian walk reading NKJV and transitioned to NIV. I do flip back and forth between the two and will continue to do so. Have a blessed day!

[lemonsquidsec]

You've certainly put some great effort into understanding and adhering to the Word of God. I'm curious to know, do you think that if someone is only exposed to the NIV, would they be able to have and maintain a fulfilling relationship with Christ? Eager to hear your response if you happen to see this. God bless you.

[David]

So, I'll take the dissenting position in this debate.

First, we have to be careful in our assumptions. To say that the NIV translators chose a particular word to avoid "offense" with out evidence is disingenuous and risks creating a strawman against the NIV.

Second, as we all know, language changes over time. In the past, because of their physical limitations, women were seen as weaker, so it made sense to make the association that the older texts did, especially where swords and spears were concerned, but that concept loses some of its punch with the introduction of modern weapons. Now, a woman can easily be as deadly as a man in battle if not more so depending on her position; it only takes a finger to push a launch button. So, the idea of using "women" as a pejorative falls flat on modern audiences because the connection is now obscured in the 21st century, and the NIV is reflecting that change. Afterall, the goal of any good translation is intelligibility.

I appreciate the NIV's desire to clarify the term for people, and I am equally grateful for the multiplicity of translations so we can get a well rounded understanding of what the original authors meant :)

[billiamnotbob]

I prefer the ESV, LSB, and the NET. I will always have a special place in my heart for the NIV '84. That one uses 'women' in those verses in Jeremiah. The NIV '84 was my first Study Bible. It was also the version of the Bible that a guy gave me in a Truck Stop. They were from a local Baptist Church in Southern Indiana. They were handing out copies of the NT with Psalms and Proverbs. I asked him what they had against the OT and if they didn't think it was important enough. I was an unsaved smart alec. Well, he gave me his copy. It was just a heavy paper cover version but it was HIS own. I still have it. It's been all over the US and is beat up and the cover is held on with tape. God used that man, and this version to start me down the path to Salvation. I will always treasure that. Isn't God magnificent?!

[scmarih]

I actually had just purchased this bible and knowing what I know now it will be returned. Thank you for this informative video!

[chriscarpenter]

Have you done a video on the NLT version the 2015 update? Would you say it is more literal than the NIV 2011? Because in these verses, NLT still translate as women. Thanks for the video.

[jamesbarringer]

Only people who do not understand translation assert word-for-word translation is better.

While I've never studied ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek or Aramaic, I have studied
1) Latin,
2) French,
3) Mandarin Chinese and
4) Japanese.

Whenever I hear people insist word-for-word translations are a "gold standard" in translation - it is not. If you think this, I would bet that you have never achieved even an intermediate level of fluency in a second modern language.

A simple real-life example:

I was stationed in Japan in the Navy, and one of my collateral jobs was as PR Officer for my ship, USS St. Louis.

On the 20th anniversary of our ship's launch (its "birthday"), I remember our Captain wanted a "Happy Birthday St. Louis" banner in Japanese to hang on the side of our ship. I said I would go to one of our base's native Japanese speakers to translate it.

My Captain was furious at me and insisted I do a word-for-word translation myself, which, of course his being my Commanding Officer, I did. I cracked open my English-Japanese dictionary and did what my Captain ordered.

In Japanese, word for word that would be translated as "Shiawase tanjoubi Sainto Ruisu, " which is gibberish in the Japanese language. It's just not something anyone would ever say. But we made the banner, and the Japanese people who saw it just scratched their heads, not knowing what to think but, "Crazy Americans."

Deep religious discussions, poetry, politics and philosophy are far, far harder than translating "Happy Birthday, " and the modern United States has far more in common with modern Japan than we have with ancient Israel or ancient Greece.

Even a translator well trained in a particular ancient language is likely to make great errors when operating independently of a board. Take, for example Bart Ehrman: It is simply the case he is vastly more likely to get at an errant meaning than would be the case if he was working with a board of scholars working together.

It is very, very hard to translate modern languages faithfully. Imagine how hard it is to translate with a 2000 to 4000 year difference, as Biblical scholars have to do it. Not only do we not know the language, we don't know the social context, cultural context - and a million other things that affect accurate translation.

This is why the NIV, ESV and other Bible translations that use oldest reliable sources in original languages (i.e. unlike the KJV, they are not 92% ripping off the Tinsdale Bible) use large teams, and fiercely debate changes before implementing them.

Bart seems to have made a successful career giving the world dubious translations, because he can get away with it as he puts himself as an independent authority. He can do this because we are so ignorant of how hard it is to translate very different languages from very different times and culturs. Bart Ehrman is a board of one, and so he is not responsible to anyone but himself. But your Bible likely is translated with a large team, all keeping themselves honest, and relying on two millenia of experiences of other translators.

Anyway, word-for-word translation is bad translation. We are far, far better served by experienced boards of translators and historians doing this work for our benefit, and focusing on what we can do well - i.e. read the Bible thoroughly, thoughtfully and frequently.

[kevinblythe]

Still read and refer to the 84 NIV, NKJV and the LSB. Great reference combination imho.

[Grgarus]

Pastor Matt, like you I am not woke and agree that men are generally physically stronger than women (although I am not sure how I’d do pregnant for 9 months - thank God as a man it’s impossible and thus not for me to worry about - but i digress), but i don’t actually think the word choice here is about gender more than it is about the idea the author is trying to convey which I think the NIV actually gets more right than a “Word for word” translation despite that the Hebrew word translated is “women.” Surely the phrase “… be like women” is trying to convey a common-place expression unique to Hebrew speaking people peculiar to that time - in this case weakness or weakling. Somehow trying to convey “…be like the female anatomical and biochemical structure” doesn’t fit the context quite right, right? The issue with the “word for word” concept is that its a misnomer at best and misleading at worst. In my experience, language (even different dialects within the same language) doesn’t translate that cleanly. WfW translations depend heavily on the readers understanding of historical context and often local uses of language. I suspect the average reader (myself included) generally wouldn’t know how words idioms, word choices, etc. I like that a team of scholars took a structured approach with checks and balances to study that stuff and present the ideas the original authors endeavored to convey.

[surfandstreamfisher]

in Jeremiah 51:30, in the NIV 1984 version the word "women" is used.IMO, Zondervan needs to publish the 1984 version again.

[chrislunardi]

I'm as conservative on this issue as the next guy but just devil's advocate here: Couldn't someone argue that they changed it to weaklings to clarify what was meant by "like women" since what NIV does everywhere is paraphrase and explain terminology in that same way? I imagine if they were acting in good faith and non-maliciously they were probably having a talk about narrowing down what could be meant by "like women" and doing the interpretive work for the reader, as they do throughout the NIV, like "what is meant by 'like women'" "it means weak" (same interpretation as you or I would give) "ok then let's put that in"

[CornCod]

My own denomination, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod hates the NIV 2011 and has advised its congregations not to buy it. We are having problems finding a new tranlation we like. I was promoting going back to the KJV but people think I'm crazy.

[steventerry]

What do you know about the Scofield Bible controversy? There are SO many articles and videos online that it makes my head spin. I'm looking for a good synopsis based on the truth from an orthodox/reformed theology perspective. I'm not interested in going down a "conspiracy rabbit hole" per se, but, I would definitely appreciate a balanced and informed perspective (if one exists). Thanks!