Robert Martin

 In the preceding two chapters, we saw that the NIV has been influenced heavily by the philosophy of dynamic equivalence. And although the NIV certainly is not as dynamic as the Good News Bible or the New English Bible, nevertheless, it has more in common with the dynamic equivalence versions than with the formal equivalence versions.

But is the NIV an accurate translation? Is the NIV accurate enough as a translation to warrant its becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world? Does the NIV meet the church’s need for an accurate translation of the Scriptures, which are her only standard of faith and practice? Our answer to these questions depends, of course, on our definition of accuracy.

If we define accuracy of translation in terms of dynamic equivalence principles, virtually any rendering may be judged accurate; unless, of course, the consensus of opinion is that the translator has missed the ‘idea’ of the original author. If the translator divides complex sentences, adds or omits words, eliminates technical terms, makes the text modern culturally, injects his interpretive opinions, or engages in outright paraphrase, it is of no great concern. As long as he still gives his readers the general ideas of the original text, he is not guilty of inaccuracy in translation. By such a standard, of course, the NIV is an accurate translation. But if we define accuracy in terms of formal equivalence principles, that is, in terms of close correspondence to the structure and wording of the original texts, then the NIV must be judged inaccurate on a number of counts, as the preceding chapters demonstrate.

Which standard of accuracy should we use? I am convinced that we must view accuracy in terms of formal equivalence. I cannot conclude otherwise with a clear conscience. Since the inspiration of the Bible is both verbal and plenary (i.e., since inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture, and equally to all the words of Scripture), and not just dynamic (i.e., the error that inspiration has to do only with the ‘ideas’ or ‘thoughts’ of the Bible), then the accuracy of translations must be judged by principles which reflect a recognition of this most fundamental truth concerning the nature of the Scriptures. But is the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation ultimately consistent with such a recognition? I do not believe that it is.

In the dynamic equivalence method of translation, the individual word is not the primary unit in translation. But, if the individual word is not the primary unit in translation, then it is hard to defend the premise that the individual word should be regarded as the primary unit in inspiration either. Indeed, if the individual word is abandoned as the primary unit of translation, what practical significance would a doctrine of the verbal-plenary inspiration of the originals have for the Bible reader who could not read the Greek and Hebrew texts?

In an earlier chapter, I asserted that the general tendency has been to find dynamic translation associated with heterodox views of biblical inspiration and authority. In all fairness, the NIV seems to be an exception to this tendency. Although the NIV has been influenced heavily by the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation, its translators reportedly hold high views of biblical inspiration and authority. These reports are undoubtedly true; and I have no desire to cast a shadow on their reputation for orthodoxy. I am certain that their high view of the Scriptures and their love for the people of God were precisely what motivated their undertaking the NIV project. But I must assert, however, that in the final analysis such a heavy use of the dynamic equivalence philosophy is at odds with the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration.

Perhaps this generation of Bible translators will continue to embrace orthodox views of Scripture while using the dynamic method of translation. But history teaches that inconsistency in one generation becomes heterodoxy in the next. Where the dynamic method of translation is embraced, it is but one small step to the embracing of the dynamic view of inspiration as well.

It should be obvious by now that my counsel is that we should use formal equivalence translations and promote them among the people of God. While dynamic translations may have value, they should not be used as our primary study Bibles or as the standards from which we derive our personal or corporate theology and practice. It is also probably unwise to use them as pulpit Bibles or as pew Bibles, because in doing so they are invested with the aura of the approval of the church.

The NIV is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world. Its accuracy is suspect in too many ways. This conclusion may not be welcome in some quarters and some no doubt are convinced that they have good reasons for drawing the opposite conclusion. I can only say that I have not reached this conclusion hastily. Moreover, I have written with a clear conscience that I have been fair to the men who produced the NIV. In the final analysis, the reader must judge for himself whether the NIV deserves the place which its publishers seek for it.

In closing, I must make one final observation. We must beware of the long-term costs of supposed short-term gains. The idea in some places seems to be that more people will read their Bibles if they have one of the simpler dynamic translations, like the NIV. This may or may not be so; I do not know. I suspect that spiritually-minded folk have always read their Bibles and studied diligently those parts ‘hard to be understood’ (2 Peter 3:16). I do know, however, that sacrificing precision for simplicity is no bargain. Inaccurate and paraphrastic Bible translations cannot but contribute to the further erosion of theological precision in the decades to come.

Many new versions have come from the press in the twentieth century and undoubtedly we may expect more in the future. Each will claim to be the ‘new standard in Bible translation’. We cannot afford to be swept along by the advertising or by the flurry of uncritical enthusiasm which accompanies each new Bible version. We must be cautious and conservative. We must insist that new versions earn their right to widespread use in the churches not by advertising finesse but by our careful scrutiny of their accuracy. The Bible is the touchstone of our faith and practice. We cannot afford to be careless and uninformed in these matters.

 Author

 Dr. Robert P. Martin is Professor of Biblical Theology in Trinity Ministerial Academy, and Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, Montville, New Jersey. This article is taken from his book Accuracy of Translation And the New International Version, (Banner of Truth, 1989, pp. 68-70.

 Discuss this article and other topics in our Discussion Board

Return to the Main Highway

Go to Calvinism and the Reformed Faith

:-) <——