NIV Bible Translator Karen Jobes Explains Bible Translation

New International Version Bible translator Karen Jobes takes the mystery out of modern translation.
If you like TMBH you can support the channel at patreon.com/tmbh.

[@herodytus]

Love this series, Matt. Thanks for tackling the topic in an engaging way and taking the mystery out of a process that's too often assumed a "black box."

[@sacausey]

I will second this. Thank you for doing the work you do!

[@AlexCFaulkner]

At first I was only going to watch part 1 but then you convinced me at the end to watch part 2 and I am very glad you did!

[@jessieyang9849]

Thanks! I knew Karen back in the day (during her doctoral program). She's great. Glad you could have her on!

[@felixmarinjr.66]

I learned a lot. Thank you for this great interview!

[@emmanueltruths]

Heavenly treasures not earthly! Relationship is with the creator!

[@youknowmyname5695]

You: " ... blood ritual ... " Her: 😳🤨 Me: 🤦🏻‍♂️😂 👍🏼

[@xandro2445]

I go between the ESV and NIV. Love the NIV

[@danbuter]

I've been reading all of the major translations. I actually settled on the New Living Translation (NLT) as my favorite. It's easy to read, but also accurate to the original Greek. So many people don't understand the Bible was written in common Greek because it was supposed to be understood by anyone and everyone.

[@emmanueltruths]

Do you know the orginal?

[@jongeiser7569]

Great video Matt! I love that you ask about the structure and how things are organized. And nice correcting of yourself, Cleveland is a nice place. We have a NBA championship now.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I retract any and all negative remarks directed at the fair city of Cleveland.

[@khgblast203]

Having being involved with the translation of the New Testament I really am enjoying this interview.

[@gpaine]

This awesome. See you in part 2!

[@IndianaJoe0321]

I appreciated Dr. Jobes' candor regarding some of the heated discussions. One of my former O.T. profs was a translator for the 1984 edition and he told me about a "heated discussion" which further escalated over the English translation of Isaiah 7:14. All had agreed -- except the overseer (I forgot the name ... was he a 'chairman?') -- on translating the Hebrew "almah" as "young woman." W However, when the overseer (chairman?) demanded the English translation "virgin" and would not budge on his position, he threatened to walk out and leave the translation completely. Needless to say, everyone decided to back off & go with "virgin," just to keep this guy onboard with the project.

[@quinterbeck]

Imma go watch the second half straight away!! see you over there

[@dlynngamble1613]

Hi Matt, can you detail which Commentary on Ester you are referring to when you described how much you learned. Karen Jobes has two different versions on Amazon. thanks

[@EmilyMartinez-vz4cc]

Dude, just thank you

[@misseli1]

Thank you for posting this video. The NIV, followed by the ESV and NASB, is one of the translations I use most. I grew especially fond of the NIV after listening to a particularly good dramatized version of it on biblegateway, that really helped me concentrate while reading. (I'm both a visual and auditorial learner). But at the same time, I've come across so many Christians who try to discredit the NIV as corrupt or "too liberal," and that it doesn't measure up to translations like the KJV/NKJV. I think most translations have merit, and while I was often inclined to agree with others, I've also had a suspicion that a bit of bias and misunderstandings was behind their critiques. This was a great video, and it cleared up some of my confusion on the subject.

[@emmanueltruths]

Do you know the orginal?

[@joelhoughton8563]

Thanks for asking about gender neutral/accurate language. Her answer was great.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I agree. She changed my perspective on it.

[@joelhoughton8563]

Mine too. I'd never heard it framed as "accuracy" but only as "political correctness" by detractors. Everything she said makes perfect sense. Great interview and thanks again!

[@joelhoughton8563]

@Leah Hunter Thanks for your comment. I understand that the Bible was not written in gender neutral language (although its usage of the masculine was simply following the conventions of the day), and there are many occasions where the pronoun choice is intentional and matters, but I think it's also obvious that more than just biological males are intended in other instances (perhaps Psalm 1:1 is a fitting example). Having said that, my preferred translations render the text as close to the original as possible and let me (the interpreter) decide what it means; but her comment gave me a glimpse of understanding into their thought process during translation, and indeed dynamic equivalent thought in general, that I appreciate and that has helped me to see the benefit to something that I previously thought was highly suspicious.

[@Mrsg730]

The NIV is my favorite version but I am always questioning my choice because of all the negativity. I’ve bought and tried reading other versions but my heart keeps going back to the NIV. I even paid a ridiculous price for the 1984 version because it has less negativity attached to it.

[@MANOFGOD9000]

They have "booty" in the NKJV version too. I heard it in an audio bible. I wasn't expecting it and it did make me giggle a bit. Its called "The Word of Promise" audio bible and has an all star cast.

[@BennettSanderson]

12:12 He's obviously worried that his sarcasm wasn't obvious.

[@sorenpx]

She seemed to not really tune into any of his humor here.

[@JM-ig4ed]

My past great uncle was on the translation committee in the late 1800's.

[@jorowi]

Three thumbs up!

[@noahwilhelm9201]

Great video! Is this going on the TMBH podcast?

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thanks Noah, and yes.

[@noahwilhelm9201]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour Awesome! I’ll probably still watch part 2, but I might end up wanting to hear it again, and the long videos that you make into podcasts are great for windshield time.

[@danielkyle2281]

I think this a great example of how modern scholarship exists in a world of new biases. The conservative route preserves a modern tradition (translations) where as etymology might reveal surprising differences in the Hebrew and Greek. I think the one with most relevance due to the war on drugs is the Kaneh Bosm of Exodus 30:22-23

[@erbylopez6003]

As someone who grew up reading and hearing the Bible read and preached in Spanish, I’ve always been curios about how the translations of the Bible in that language came to be, especially the Reina Valera which is the “King James” version of the Bible in the Spanish-speaking world. Would be cool if you interviewed someone who had knowledge about this. ;)

[@marlonbrandon1604]

The history is even more exciting than KJV. 1960 is the best version to me since it has the best of both worlds. KJV married NASB had the Valera 1960.

[@johnmcafee6140]

I'm a Bible translation nerd so I've really been looking forward to this episode. I'm glad you guys dealt with the gender language issue The sheer volume of misinformation that has been disseminated in opposition to the NIV (Especially among my fellow Southern Baptists.) has been driving me crazy. Also, I was glad to hear you give a shout-out to Dr. Daniel Wallace. His work is amazing.

[@WookbooKtheeKpopTrucker]

its unfortunate when the most opposition to NIV you hear are from Southern Baptists. I assume those anti NIV Southern Baptists are King James Only. If they are KJO then they are in opposition to all other translates, not just NIV. So there case against NIV falls flat. And many of these are blind to the flaws of KJV. Even with the minor flaws I feel KJV is the best. There are other greats like ASV ISV and Youngs Translation. But I will not touch NIV, Message, God's Word. Too many important flaws. Then again, when studying I rarely just read the Bible without digging into the Hebrew and Greek. I appreciate growing up on NIV and it helped lead me to Christ. But I was a child then. NIV still has the message to salvation, just like all translations. But growing up I need meat and NIV is too soft. If it still lead people to Christ, great. But we are to make disciples, not just believers. Don't get them saved and leave them alone. Much better translations help dig into the meat.

[@johnmcafee6140]

Believe it or not I don't run across many KJV onlyists. Most of the people I talk to who oppose the NIV usually use either the NASB or the ESV. There is a smugness among some NASB/ESV users who think their favorite Bible, since it's a "word-for-word" translation, is also the most accurate. The problem is that "accurate" individual words don't equal accurate meaning. Funny thing is my opinion is almost the opposite of yours. lol I like the KJV. I was raised on the KJV but it's weak manuscript base bothers me a bit. Because every translations have their flaws I usually utilize a muli-translation approach whenever possible. That being said I think the NIV is the most solid "all around" translation today. Since most all major, modern translations (NASB, ESV, CSB, NET, NIV, etc.) have the same manuscript base, I'm curious as to why you think the NIV is soft. Without getting too cerebral could you give a couple of scriptural examples of what you mean?

[@IamGrimalkin]

John McAfee I think I get what he's saying. From the translations he cited, it sounds like he prefers translations on the more literal word-for-word end of the spectrum, and found himself more inclined to them as his faith developed. That makes sense in some ways, because the thing about more dynamic translations is they are more opinionated: it takes more judgement to decide what an author meant as opposed to what an author said. That means, as you start to form opinions of your own, you may prefer something more raw you can base your opinions on, rather than using the opinions of other people. For me myself, I think that the NIV is literal enough that the translators opinion doesn't get in the way, but I do have that problem with the Message; and I can imagine for someone who looks at the Greek and Hebrew every time they read the bible, more translations will seem too opinionated for them. (Also, on most modern translations having the same manuscript base: that might be true of the new testament but it isn't really true in the old).

[@WookbooKtheeKpopTrucker]

McAfee, I apologize for assuming the ones you talk to are King James Only. I find KJOs are mostly baptist. IamGrimalkin is somewhat right. I do prefer word for word translations for study. And as he says the more and more Hebrew and Greek I look up the less im interesting in Bible commentaries. They do seem too opinionated at times. But I admit I got to be careful with that. Thinking my opinion is better than other that are scholars. Thinking I can get no insight from opinion from thought for thought translations. I prefer commentaries on what the Hebrew and Greek is saying rather than what the commentaries of the translations. I prefer to hear commentary on how the Hebrew and Greek fit in with the culture of the day. That is a problem I have with NIV. Jobes, I feel, contradicted herself. In the first video she said they try to translated the Greek into modern English phrasing and concepts. Even rephrasing from English 30 years ago. Then in the second video she said she believes the NIV is 99% accurate of what the Apostles said. But she said earlier she is using modern English phrasing. That is not word for word to me, that is thought for thought even paraphrasing in modern English at times. What I feel with a lot of recent translations fail to do, even studying and preaching fails to do, is trying to understand the culture of the time to understand what is written. The New Testament was written by Jews in a Jewish land ruled by pagan Romans. And they were written to mostly Jews living in a Hellenistic culture. Yes, there were many Gentiles or Greeks that were converted, but most were scattered ones formerly from the Northern Kingdom of the divided Israel. That's why Yeshua-Jesus said in Matthew 15 that He only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That is not Judah, that is the Northern Kingdom. Gentiles aren't lost. You have to be once a part of His flock to be lost sheep. Gentiles can become part of the flock as it says in Romans 11 that we are grafted in. Just like Ruth joined the flock of her mother in law Naomi. Your God will be my God. These lost sheep became so cultured into the Greek culture, they were called Gentile as well. Why did Paul preach in my synagogues in Asia Minor? Why would pagan Gentiles that know nothing about Judaism be in a synagogue? Paul was trying to gather the lost sheep of the House of Israel. We lose all that when we translate and think with western mindset. We lose what the Apostles say when we think the Old Testament is Jewish and the New Testament is Gentile. Yeshua-Jesus said that all of Moses and the Prophets are written of Him. Everything in the Bible, OT and NT, point to the Messiah. Whether it points to the future or the past. YHWH is beyond time, so there is no future or past, it all points to Yeshua. I feel we lose a lot when we change into our modern language and culture. Again, I learned a ton and was saved by just reading NIV. And no translation pollutes the message of salvation. You can get saved by any translation or paraphrase. But we are discussing studying and leaving the milk and digging into the meat. KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus. At the time in the 1700 century they had about 5000 manuscripts. Now we have much much more manuscripts after 400 years. And many are supporting the KJV Textus Receptus, including the best manuscript we have now, the Dead Sea Scrolls. NIV and most modern translations are translated from the Latin Vulgate. One that is from the Catholic Church which I don't trust very much. They were very corrupt. The Latin Vulgate was translated from manuscripts found mostly in the Middle East, the Eastern manuscripts. It is true these are older than the Western manuscripts in which the Textus Receptus is translated from. But Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. Most of these older manuscripts come from Alexandria copiers. And the Bible actually mention these Alexandrian Christians. Acts 6:9 is a list of groups that argued with Stephen and Alexandrian was mentioned. This is where gnostic Christians were mostly from. Alexandria was a very scholarly intelligent city. The great library of Alexandria, so they were great copiers. The gnostics were heretics that took out some verses that didn't fit their doctrine. One thing was they didn't believe Yeshua was God. That;s why some of the criticism NIV gets is that they pushing that Yeshua isn't God. I don't believe that's NIVs agenda. This is also why NIV is missing several verses that KJV has. The Textus Receptus is younger but are more accurate. They were found in the West. Yes, the believe the Roman Catholic church was corrupt but they didn't take away from the Scripture like gnostics did. They just didn't like the common folk reading the Word, so they told them whatever they wanted. Another reason why I trust Textus Receptus is the preaching of the first 3-4 centuries of the church. Most of the documents of the sermons preached at this time quoted scripture that go with the Textus Recuptus rather than the Alexandrian. Basically the only dispute is the NT. The OT most all agree on the manuscripts. That is because Jewish scholars were very articulate in copying the Hebrew Scriptures.

[@IamGrimalkin]

WookbooK Hi, I think you might be a bit confused in the manuscript base here. The Dead Sea Scroll are OT manuscripts, not NT manuscripts. My understanding is that Church Fathers that support Byzantine/TR readings usually support the Western text-type, which has similarities to the Byzantine tradition, and more similarities with the TR because of Vulgate influence. The Latin Vulgate seems to have had some Alexandrian basis, but also had heavy Western influence. And actually I would say the TR is closer to the Vulgate than the NA27 text. Amongst all points where the TR disagrees with the majority text, it agrees in some sense with the Latin Vulgate. That's not the case with the NA27. This is because Erasmus, when he compiled the TR, was under heavy pressure to conform with the Latin Vulgate. On commentaries vs more thought-for-thought translations: yeah, I can see where you're going with that too. The thing is,reading commentaries takes a while. Personally, when I am reading the bible, I prefer something on the level of the NIV first read so I can get those kind of insights more quickly and without interruption. Then, if I want to go a bit deeper, I might read a more literal translation alongside, perhaps, a commentary or something similar. In terms of gentiles, it looks to me like Paul preached first to the (yes, often Hellenistic) Jews in the synagogues, then after to the gentiles outside of that. But I'm not sure how this relates to the translations you listed. I'm not really aware of much difference in translation style regarding Jewishness, apart from perhaps the rendering of "the jews" Vs something like "the religious establishment" (I can't remember the actual rendering) in the gospel of john.

[@amandaleahspears]

I think the Bible should have a translation that aligns with all the definitions and meanings of names and proper nouns all the way to the origins of the words, by strongs perhaps. Also the albhabitical value(?) of numbers (just my thoughts) I'd really love for that thought to find its way to Ms. Jobes. I went to her wibsite but there was no contact info.

[@Sara_K_Bull]

She's supposed to be on the NIV committee, and yet she doesn't even know when the NIV first came out. At around 2:04, she said that the complete original NIV came out in 1984. Well, she got that wrong. The complete NIV first came out in 1978. It had a very subtle revision in 1984. In 2005 they did a separately printed update in the now defunct TNIV. The NIV 84' stayed that way until it was pulled out of print and replaced by a re-released TNIV in 2011 using the NIV name.

[@kauffner]

My sense is that NIV tends to adjust for modern attitudes concerning gender relations. In Ephesians 5:21-37, NIV calls on husbands and wives to, "submit to one another." In contrast, ESV and KJV tells wives to "submit" to their husbands while husbands are told to "love your wives." NRSV and ESV are the translations favored by Bible scholars. Both are based on the venerable RSV. RSV uses some outdated language, but it is still the gold standard in terms of accuracy. NRSV came out in 1989 and is used mainly in the universities. It bills itself as "ecumenical" and it has some features that are dubious from a Christian perspective. ESV is thus a good second choice translation from the point of view of both major stakeholders, Christians and academic scholars.

[@larryhughes6608]

I believe they are very consistent in both Bibles. Ephesians 5:21-33 King James Version (KJV) 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians 5:21-33 New International Version (NIV) Instructions for Christian Households 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

[@swires1]

Well we can all see in the West RIGHT NOW what happens if females DON'T submit to their men, right!?

[@kauffner]

@@larryhughes6608 In NIV, submitting to one another is put under the heading, "Instructions for Christian Households." But in the other translations, it is an instruction for how Christians in a congregation should treat each other.

[@Jeowyn]

​@@kauffnerThere are no chapters or headings in the original, though, so one isn't more "correct" than the other.

[@sorenpx]

Good interview so far, but c'mon man, outside of the introduction of new slang terms English hasn't really changed much since 1984.

[@carnivoreRon]

The committee mistranslataed Colossians 2:17 by including the word, were, in the text. Were is not in any of the Greek texts. This is a 'doctrinal' interpetation. The committee wanted to put were in to support their own doctrines.

[@Drspeiser]

"Hmmm, I wonder if there is anything different about theologians from Wyoming compared to those from elsewhere...?" Matt: "You can't get away with wearing your deer skull helmets in the lobby at Motel 6." Asked and answered! 🤠😂

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

All translations require interpretation bec each hebrew word and each greek word usually has several meanings that the translator has to choose from. For example in John 1 v16, 1 greek work can be translated as grace, blessing, favor or gift. Some translations like kenneth wuest expanded translation, amplified bible, expanded bible will just list all of the possible meanings and just let the reader choose the meaning. Giving the correct figurative meaning of idioms and proverbs also require some interpretation. Translating idioms and proverbs literally can give the wrong meaning.

[@cbigg81]

One thing I've questioned is the use if morning star in the old testament (I think Genisis, but don't recall completely) then the same term for Jesus on his return in Revelations. It's most prevalent in NIV but is in other translations but not all. It's one if the things that was brought to my attention by a guy that is more learned than I to show NIV's short comings. Help! Lol

[@arachnophilia427]

you may not like this answer. ugaritic sources routinely refer to their pantheon as "stars". ugarit was a city a bit north of israel, and ugaritic is a semitic language closely related to hebrew and aramaic. their pantheon consists of a primary god named el, who is called "elyon" (the highest), his wife asherah, and their 70 children, the elohim. in one of the most famous ugaritic works, the baal cycle, a god named hadad, called "baal", fights the other gods for supremacy of the pantheon, to become the primary god of ugarit. in hebrew, this divine council of other gods is called "benai ha-elohim", the sons of god. and there is evidence in the form of older manuscripts, the 4Q37 in the DSS, of Deut 32:8-9, that yahweh was initially among this group before vying for supremacy (psalm 82). as far as scholarship can tell, the initial faith of first temple israel/judah was henotheistic or monolatrist, believing that this pantheon existed, but that only yahweh alone should be worshiped. there are some other vestiges of this belief in the bible, and the titles of "morning stars" is among them. job 38:7 uses the title in parallel (synonymous) with "sons of god", and note that job is using this in the context of creation, which for job, culminates in the destruction of leviathan. the destruction of litanu (same root, LTN), the twisting, fleeing serpent, also appears briefly in the baal cycle, listed among the accomplishments of the great warrior baal. isaiah 14 describes a morning star being cast to the ground, and heiser has this idea that there's a kind of overlap of meaning between the "seraph" (fiery winged serpent) throne guardian deities in isaiah 6 that are "nachoshet" (shining) and the "nachash" (serpent) in gen 3. isaiah 14 describes the "son of the dawn" as "hillel", shining. the one cast out is just a member of this class. it seems like revelation is drawing on lots of these idea and reworking them, such as the battle with leviathan (the great red dragon with seven heads). it casts jesus as a son of god, and thus the title "morning star" is appropriate.

[@cbigg81]

arachnophilia I think I followed about half of that, I'll go read it again. Lol Thanks

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hi, if you're talking about it being translated as Lucifer in older translations old testament, that' just because they were transliterating the "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate. However, "Lucifer" just means "morning star" in Latin, in the same way "Calvary" means "skull"

[@arachnophilia427]

IamGrimalkin yes, but notice i was only talking about the hebrew and its translation. isaiah 14 doesn't exactly say morning star; it says "hillel ben-shachar", glorious/shining son of the dawn. it's clearly using astral imagery, and probably referring to venus, which is why the vulgate tranlated "lucifer" here.

[@misseli1]

As someone who speaks Spanish I totally get the whole masculine-generic-pronouns being used to represent both men and women. For example, the Spanish word for boys is "niños" and the word for girls is "niñas." If one were talking about multiple boys AND girls one would use the male pronoun "niños" despite girls being included in the mix. In this case the word "niños" would be translated as "boys and girls." Simply translating it as "boys" would be too literal, especially if the context indicates that both males and females are involed.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

That's an excellent example, ellie. Idioms are another example: to literally translate the English "it's raining cats and dogs" into Mandarin or Arabic would not convey the meaning, "it's raining very heavily." Think about how silly that expression would sound -- literally -- to a non-native English speaker. When folks say, "I want the MOST literal translation possible!" I try to help them understand that they probably don't know what they really want -- because most of them sincerely desire to understand God's Word. They really want a translation which will -- will translate [convey] Hebrew & Greek idioms into English.

[@sy8607]

Hey I used the Reina-Valera in Spanish and I’m thinking on using NIV for the English,although favorite one is NKJV. What’s your take on the Reina-Valera?

[@we-tha-ones]

Still say the 84 niv is the best 🙄

[@robt2151]

In addition to the change of implied meaning of words over time there is also a very significant geographical difference. For example, when an American has a flat he means a problem with his car whereas an Englishman would be referring to his apartment. As a native speaker of what is now called British English, the discussion below about 'booty' has no significance whatever. The use of generic nouns is still very much a current practice. A chairman (m or f) is a person conducting a committee whereas a chairperson is a slave whose primary duty is to carry a sedan chair.

[@nicholasshaler7442]

I am a Catholic. What does she mean at 1:14 by "The Doxology?"

[@guitaoist]

I love her work on the Septuagint Old Testament, however the NIV New Testament is incorrect and NOT the “oldest text” since the Ante-Nicene Fathers clearly quoted it hundreds of years before when it was dated, around 325AD, the fathers were quoting the Textus Receptus in 150 AD. The Textus Receptus is the New Testament word of God, not the Westcott & Hort texts, as quoted by the ante-nicene fathers, to state it again.

[@sorenpx]

The TR has additions like those in 1 John 5:7 that are almost certainly not original.

[@guitaoist]

@@sorenpx that verse is the exception yes, id recommend “The KJV Only Controversy” by James White to see all the nuances to this debate, great book

[@gentrygarage]

15:30 very important

[@EmethMatthew]

Hi Matt's mom!

[@dimesonhiseyes9134]

I pity da fool who don’t watch the second half

[@IamGrimalkin]

As part of the younger demographic she is talking about, I get what people mean when they use the "generic man", but I don't use it myself, and it does sound rather archaic to me.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Actually, now I think about it, I do use it sometimes. But mostly only when I am quoting a person or a phrase.

[@kishascott2017]

Why are there so many negative opinions on this awesome translation?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

All translations require some interpretation. Many things are also lost in translations. Ezekiel 23 v20 literal tanslations and idiomatic translations illustrates that it is sometimes clearer to give the figurative meaning of idioms and proverbs. Footnotes and commentaries usually say male donkeys and male horses are proverbial for being oversexed so the figurative meaning is actually clearer than giving a literal translation for the male urinary organ and semen. The idiomatic translations like GNT, CEV and Message (MSG) actually give a clearer translation than the literal translations like KJV and ESV. GNT and CEV has men with great sexual powers or oversexed men. Message (MSG) has virile lovers.

[@asfoundry]

Really, Cleveland?

[@GravityGamingCo]

NIV6 translation, only translated at a motel 6

[@saderin]

fun to imagine blood or some sort of ritual? Who is this guy?

[@vnekliaev]

As far as style is concerned, NIV is second only to KJB, in my opinion.

[@sorenpx]

I always loved the sound and feel of the 1984 text. I really wish they had never revised it.

[@WarmPotato]

Karen took the kids

[@jonasaras]

I’ll stick with the NKJV. It was published in the 80s, before people decided that God was sexist and that there are 60 genders. The text is stable, so I don’t have to buy a new Bible every few years, and the English is truly excellent; better than the NASB and ESV.

[@waynemccuen8213]

Anybody up for forming an NIVonlyist "Club"? ..............JOKE, I'M JOKING.

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Let's actually do it. I am NIV/NASB only.

[@waynemccuen8213]

@@joelrodriguez1232 Gosh, that'd be sooooooo much fun. I got saved in 1975 and bought a New Scofield Reference Bible, which I still have and use. I use the NIV mostly, The NET, and a couple of others for reference. I feel so sad for the KJVOnlyists. I kinda think an NIVonlyist Club would just turn into a KJVOnlyist Bashers Club tho. But the whole concept to me is humorous.

[@samuelyung3749]

We need to have a sports jersey for Bible translators... sorry Lebron... Karen is more Rad

[@DS-uo5ie]

Why are there so many mistakes in the NIV?

[@ttarabbia]

+

[@SirMortog]

17:28-18:20 Respectfully disagree in its entirety. The only “culture” that’s changing their pronouns is the LGBTQ-LMNOP culture and those sympathetic to their cause. This tilt towards an Anti-Christian sub-culture is why I abandoned the revised NIV for the ESV.

[@chazickes4989]

You obviously haven't been to Cleveland. I wouldn't put it past people wearing deer skulls walking down the street here.

[@taripar4967]

I still disagree with the rationale of the gendered words. Sure, Pastors have stopped using certain phrases by and large, but most forget that that change has been forced upon them (or at least heavily encouraged) by the broader culture and the need to appear "nice." To convert "brethren" to "brothers and sisters" is accurate in intent, but inaccurate in grammar. Adelphoi still ultimately means brothers, not sisters. The masculine inclusive is still used all the time in everyday speech too. "Guys" for example, still comes from the mouth of girls even when speaking to a group of men and women (and rarely, sometimes exclusively women). tl;dr I appreciate her giving the rationale behind the change, but as someone who studies language pretty in-depth, it's annoying. Culture be damned, keep the grammar when you're able to.

[@sorenpx]

Apparently Daniel Wallace has provided examples from extrabiblical Koine Greek literature where "adelphoi" was used to refer to mixed-gender siblings.

[@taripar4967]

@@sorenpx Inclusive masculine is a trait of English too. Brothers could also include sisters, just like many other languages. Demonstrating an inclusive masculine in an old language only reinforces my point. Like ellos in Spanish, which can refer to a "they" group of guys or a mixed group of guys and girls. But never just girls. That's ellas. Adelphoi would have a similar principle. It's a masculine inclusive, probably why it's been translated "brethren" for who knows how long.

[@sorenpx]

@@taripar4967 I don't disagree, but it's also a reality that languages do evolve, and I have heard that studies have shown that many young people today, for instance, literally don't understand a reference to "man" as meaning all of mankind. I know that may be hard to fathom if you're older than 30, but I've heard this more than once -- they literally are not familiar with that usage or used to it. This goes back to the literal vs dynamic argument, but I'll only say that for evangelizing I'd be willing to use an "inclusive language" translation, provided it only uses inclusive language when it's clear that both genders are in fact included. After all, when we're talking about the salvation of souls, it's best to avoid as much confusion as possible. However, with that said, for serious personal study I would advise all believers to use a formally equivalent translation that provides as open a window as possible to the original languages.

[@taripar4967]

@@sorenpx Languages can slowly change pronunciation over time, yes (OE --> Modern English). Some words can shift meaning over time (see: nice vs. nice), yes. Agree. Words and phrases can be brought over from foreign languages, yes (e.g. adios, bon jour). However, fundamental concepts like fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters are the same across nearly every language. Ignorance on the part of the reader is not the fault of the translator. Give people more credit. I'm 27 now, but I understood this concept back in High School when I took Spanish, and, again, colloquially with "guys" being used to address groups of mixed-gender-and sometimes also exclusively women. It's not hard. Expect more out of people, my dude. My sister is younger than me and she gets it. Virtually every woman in the Church these past 100 years has understood it. It's not cryptic. Don't cave to modernity and its pressures. The gospel will always be the same. If someone really rejects it because the Church has been referred to as a "brethren" in nearly every language it's spread to, that's just on them. And what a pitiful reason to reject your Maker.

[@sorenpx]

@@taripar4967 I know in many cases translations that do not use inclusive language will not translate anthropoi as "brethren" but rather as "brothers." And I do see how someone who is not a Christian and knows nothing about the Bible could get tripped up and confused by that. Considering that the purpose of translation is to accurately convey meaning, I think that translating it as "brothers and sisters" is a perfectly defensible translation and not "caving to modernity and its pressures." With that said, there are actually other instances that I think are far more controversial, where the translators jump through all kinds of hoops, including employing bad English style and grammar, to stay "inclusive," and I think those decisions are far less defensible. In the worst cases, meaning is actually lost--the exact opposite of the translator's purpose--and the use of inclusive language leads to misunderstandings of the text.

[@CJFCarlsson]

Q: Is everyone a christian? A: They hold PhDs! Sounds like a case of a committee being unevenly yoked, as the bible would describe it.

[@CJFCarlsson]

Allright, answered with "everybody on the committee is a christian" 5 minutes later. Which sounds abit better.

[@DillonOrbon]

Biggest reason I find myself more convinced of the KJV as opposed to any other.

[@tomidomusic]

Signing a statement of faith is how one group or one person's agenda can yield inserts into the text. This renders the contents of any translation to be dishonest and not 100% reliable and or accurate.

[@sorenpx]

So then only non-Christians can accurately translate the Bible? What sense does that make?

[@tomidomusic]

@@sorenpx You don't need to be anything but a well-qualified and honest translator. You need not belong to any denomination and should be true only to truth itself.

[@sorenpx]

@@tomidomusic I agree, but you shouldn't assume that because someone signed a statement of faith that they aren't an honest translator.

[@sorenpx]

@@tomidomusic I agree with you, and of course a qualified atheist could produce an honest translation. But I also can see why Christians might want the translators on their Bibles to be Christians themselves. The fear here would be bias going in the other direction.

[@sarw9294]

I heard the NIV has gone gender-neutral. Sure hope not.

[@brothacarllovesjesus]

There is only One God - Mark 12:29 There is only One Faith - Isaiah 35:8 There is only One Baptism - Acts 2:38 There is only one Bible. How do you know? Because the Holy Ghost is the Author and told Holy Men to publish it. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:20, 21 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. Psalms 68:11 What the revised bible version folks: NIV, ESV, NASB and on and on won't tell you is where do their translations come from? Let's see where the Bible God's one and only Holy Word tells us it comes from: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Acts 13:1-4 So we have prophets and teachers = Holy men of God In the Church at Antioch = The place the Bible came from The Holy Ghost said = The Author of the Bible The Holy Ghost told them to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I called them. What was that work? To publish the word of the Lord. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. Acts 13:49 So in the Bible itself, God's word of Truth - John 17:17 We have the Church who Jesus Christ is the Head of - Ephesians 5:23 We have the Author of all the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, The Holy Ghost - 2 Peter 1:20, 21 We have the prophecy of the Old Covenant being fulfilled - Psalms 68:11; Acts 13:49 God makes it so simple for us because we are all going to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for the Truth of the Gospel that we know. - 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11 The simple question to know if you have the one and only Bible which is the Word of God is this: Where does your NIV, ESV, NASB translation of the scriptures come from? Does the NIV, ESV, NASB or any of your many different revised bible translations get it's scriptures from Antioch? I'll answer that for you, and you go look it up for yourself. Your soul and obedience to God is involved here, The answer is no. No not one, None are from Antioch, no not one. Where does your NIV, ESV, NASB and every revised bible in the history of mankind get it's translation from? Alexandria. These ain't no Bibles. Revised Version Translations are what the Apostle Paul called, "Corruptions of the word of God" For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:17 These are Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Marcion and many other Philosophers and Scholars private interpretation of the Word of God. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 Today, Modern Revised Version actually put the wrong words in their translation to comply with derivative copyright laws so they can get paid ( See Matthew 6:19 and Psalms 12:7; 138:2 just to name a few). For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10 We'll in English is there any complete, tried and tested, preserved word of God preservation of the Holy Bible today from Antioch? Yes. The Authorized King James Bible. In the language of Lawyers this is called an "Open and Shut case !" In the language of Theologians this is called "Sound Doctrine !" And in the language of the Born Again Saints of God who are washed in the Blood of the Lamb Jesus Christ, Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ filled with the Holy Ghost with the power of God to witness the Truth of the Holy Gospel, This is called, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" - John 8:32 Amen and Amen.

[@rabbidrabb5227]

"private interpretations of the Word of God." There is literally no one who has read the Bible that doesn't do this, even from your beloved Antioch. Everyone interprets what they read.

[@woodfin77]

Didn’t read😎

[@formernifb6864]

Amen brother!

[@courant9390]

The original bible was not written in english. 2000 years ago there was no english at all.

[@brothacarllovesjesus]

@@courant9390 No Holy Scriptures were ever, ever, ever written in English. The Holy Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Syriack and Antioch Greek. The preservations are in other tongues including English as prophesied in the Holy Scriptures "Book of the Lord". The first English dialect wasn't until 550 A.D. If you think any Holy Scriptures were written in English then you are in TROUBLE. Now you must have the preservation of God's word that is PURE, TRIED LIKE SILVER IN THE FURNACE OF EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, AND PERSERVED FROM THIS GENERATION FOREVER ! The LORD GOD says, For with stammering lips and another TONGUE will I speak to this people. - Isaiah 28:11 So God intended for the HEBREW OF THE OLD COVENANT WITH THE PORTIONS IN SYRIACK FROM THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY AND THE ANTIOCH GREEK OF THE NEW COVENANT TO BE PRESERVED IN OTHER TONGUES (ENGLISH IS ANOTHER TONGUE). WHY? THE LORD is the one who confounded the Languages - Genesis 11:9 GOD WANTS THE MAN IN ASIA TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN THEIR ASIAN TONGUE GOD WANTS THE MAN IN INDIA TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN THEIR INDIAN TONGUE GOD WANTS THE MAN IN EUROPE TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN THEIR EUROPEAN TONGUE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST, DOWN UNDER, NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA, CHINA, RUSSIA AND AFRICA TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE WHICH GOD HIMSELF CHANGED. THAT'S WHY LEARNING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN HEBREW, SYRIACK AND GREEK IS NOT NECESSARY AND NOT BY GOD'S WILL. GOD GAVE MANKIND THEIR OWN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND TOLD YOU HE WOULD PRESERVE HIS HOLY WORD SO YOU CAN KNOW GOD IN YOUR OWN TONGUE. "THAT'S BIBLE !" WHAT BROTHER CARL IS TELLING YOU IS THAT, "THE BOOK OF THE LORD" DOES NOT COME FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT ! THE LXX SEPTUAGINT (NO MATTER HOW OLD THEY CLAIM IT IS ) COMES FROM EGYPT. "IT'S NO GOOD, DEAD LETTER, GOD GOT NO RECORD OF IT" THE OTHER GREEK TEXT FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT ALEXANDRIAN, BODMER PAPYRI, NAG HAMMADI, MICHIGAN PAPYRI AND OTHER EGYPTIAN NEW TESTAMENT TEXT COME FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT, "IT'S NO GOOD, DEAD LETTER, GOD GOT NO RECORD OF IT !" THE HOLY BIBLE (WASN'T EVEN CALLED KING JAMES UNTIL THE REVISE BIBLE USERS DID SO IN 1905 A.D.) IS THE MOST COMPLETE ENGLISH PRESERVATION OF THE HEBREW MASORETE, SYRIACK AND ANTIOCH GREEK IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. "THAT'S GOD'S PRESERVED WORD !" THOSE 400+ REVISED EGYPTIAN BIBLES IN JUST THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ONLY ARE FAKES. THEY HAVE GREEK LXX SEPTUAGINT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (MOSES, JOSHUA, SAMUEL, DAVID. SOLOMON OR NONE OF THE PROPHETS WROTE A JOT OR TITTLE IN GREEK, EVER, EVER, EVER) ! THE BORN AGAIN NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH WITH THE APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES AIN'T EVER, EVER, EVER WROTE AN IOTA FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT. NO HOLY SCRIPTURES FROM THE BOOK OF THE LORD COMES FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT - Jeremiah 44:26-28 GET GOD'S WORD AND STOP FOOLING AROUND. IF YOU SPEAK ENGLISH IT IS THE HOLY BIBLE FIRST PRINTED IN 1611 A.D.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

I very much appreciate this interview giving an inside peak at the NIV interpretation process; but it's a useless interpretation to be honest... well, it's useful to keep people from hearing the spiritual teachings which are far more clear in the Greek; but that's a use that would be better if it never existed. The NIV is an interpretation, not a translation. Thankfully, most people who are passionate about Christianity use KJV; it's enough work clearing up misconceptions caused by the way the KJV is translated, but then adding on top of that modern interpretations and even blatant lies, and we who offer God's Truth have our work cut out for us trying to help people receive what was handed down by the apostles. Take NIV Mark ch7 v19 for example "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" that is added by so-called translators, and it's a false doctrine... putting false doctrine in the mouth of Christ; it's criminal. I was born in 1984 and English has changed essentially zero in my lifetime, at least in terms of anything relevant to translating Scripture. This is why KJV is the best resource by far (I say resource, because the Greek is very necessary), we can get to know the vocab, it's never going to be changed on us, the English language was stabilized by the KJV so our language is formed to that translation, and, although it's not as consistently and clearly translation as it should be, it IS a translation. (EDIT: I typed this just before the "booty" example, which is fair, except I'm sure that was a poor choice in 1984, I don't remember a time when "booty" didn't mean "butt", it was used more as a polite word for "butt" like "bottom" is, so it has changed, but it was just a poor choice from the start) I don't see any reason why philosophy should come into a translation process, the Scripture can express God's philosophy via translation and to tinker with the philosophy is criminal. I do understand that linguistics and scholarship involve history, but history only should come in as an aspect of linguistics and scholarship, there should not be review of extra-biblical history which is applied to the text. Even the idioms and compound words should be left as-is and we Christians can all learn what they mean. Rather than deforming the Bible to our language and culture, as Christians we should conform and transform our culture and language to the Bible. I've checked the NIV and it's terrible when compared to the Greek. There is not one widespread modern interpretation or translation which has improved on the KJV. Sometimes the modern interpretations use a more clear translation choice, but more often they interpret instead of translating so the point is moot. In the case of "translating" Scripture, interpreting IS nefarious; the apostles interpreted themselves when they wrote it, and we are to hand down the same trust we have received. At best the NIV babies Christians and makes them weak in terms of scholarship. The pronouns is a good example, we should learn how Biblical Greek applies pronouns, we shouldn't interpret which masculine pronouns specify males; and when things receive masculine and feminine pronouns that gives us insight into deeper implications of symbolism etc. "Man" in the gender neutral is not a pronoun at all, and is best translated "person" or more literally as "man-countenance", and using plural pronouns for singulars is not sufficient for translation, so it would be best to use "person" and keep the pronouns masculine. If God wanted gender neutral pronouns He would have had it written in gender neutral pronouns. I won't complain about political correctness, but I do rebuke changing God's Scriptures.

[@DillonOrbon]

This made me even more of a KJV only person.

[@sorenpx]

Why?

[@abaddon2148]

me when i'm stupid💀

[@davymarcelo3901]

“If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul…” Alert 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@thislittlelight5657]

There is an enormous amount of omissions in the NIV in both the New and Old Testaments. It is by far the worse of all the Bible perversions out there. While there are some omissions in even the ESV, it doesn't compare to the NIV. While the KJV language is old-school, it is still the most honest translation there is concerning the English translations. Trust no one and do your own comparison research, so you will know the truth for yourself.

[@datchet11]

This Little Light you have no idea what you are taking about.

[@rabbidrabb5227]

So the KJV adds to then

[@marychong4999]

Kings James Version the only true verison