On Biblical Translation: The NIV Stinks

rief note on Bible translation: A lot of people place a huge emphasis on what translation of the Bible one uses. Some Baptists insist that the King James version (the one published after they excised the "Apocrypha" from the original) is the only good version to use.

Obviously, being Catholic, it is good form to stick to Catholic Magisterially approved translations like the New American Bible. I believe that God has poured out his Holy Spirit on the magisterium of the Catholic Church, guiding us "into all the truth" as he promised his disciples he would. But frankly, even the best translations are going to lose something in translation from the original, in the same way that when I communicate something to another person, there is no way that my words can perfectly reflect the thought that came out. Or take the game of telephone. Each translation the message goes through is going to undergo signal degradation and loss of fidelity, just like a recording of a recording is not going to sound as good as listening to the acoustic guitarist unamplified in concert.

If you really want to get as close to the original message as possible through natural means, you need to know the original languages in which the Bible was written. 

While I work on my Hebrew and Greek skills, I have a lot of sympathy for translators and no longer care too much what version I use beyond prefering Catholic-approved translations. Supernaturally we believe that God has providentially protected the core of the Gospel in its purity from corruption. But there is an exception to my tolerance. There is a translation I despise, because it is obvious to me that they do not even attempt textual fidelity, so much as they demand that their translations of the text adhere to a broad Evangelical Protestant theology...

I hate the NIV translation. And I'm not the only one. Over and over again, it has proven itself to be unreliable whenever the least bit of a thorny theological problem comes up. The translators have decided to perform introgesis, introducing their own philosophical and theological assumptions into the text for the sake of not confusing the poor hopeless rubes in their congregations (that's you and me) who might read something they don't understand and raise a fit. 

Aside from the examples mentioned by Paul Davidson in the linked text above, I noticed this beauty when reading the text for my article "On What Day did God Complete Creation?"

See if you can spot it. Here are four translations of Genesis 2:2.

NRSV: And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 
NABRE: On the seventh day God completed the work he had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
ESV: And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 
NIV: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

Yes, by introducing a pluperfect tense instead of a simple perfect, they totally sidestep the issue of how God could have been finished with the Heavens and the Earth on Day Six, but finished the work he had done on Day Seven. In so doing, they miss the importance of the Sabbath day that God had made. Over and over again, these "translators" exhibit their narrow-mindedness and hubris by assuming they know what must have been meant since the plain translation contradicts their assumptions. 

So while I can easily forgive differences of opinion on translation, as no translation is perfect, what I cannot forgive is theocrats who impose themselves on the text of Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to inform and shape their theological views. They are, frankly, guilty of the crime mentioned in Revelation 22:19: "And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." (NASB)