Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Grace, if you use the NIV version and attest to its reliability, then why does Isaiah 7:14 still translate "almah" as 'virgin': LINK.
I've answered that already, but don't mind doing so again for the sake of others. The NIV is a good translation, but it isn't a perfect translation. There are a few places in every English translation where a person could take exception to the work of those who have gone before them. The use of the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7 is one of those places in the NIV.
Sadly, I believe that what happened is that the committee caved to pressure from the publisher who was biased in favor of the term "virgin". I think that bias came from the long history of the KJV which also had used the term "virgin" before it. The passage is one of the most well-known and frequently cited passages in the church, used every year during Advent as we Christians look forward to Christ's coming. People have grown up with this phrase since their infancy. And while not everyone would object, there are many conservatives in the church (just like in every other field) who don't like to see things changed. They'll say riduculous things like, "If it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me." Of course, they have no idea what Paul and Silas (or anyone in previous generations) thought about this term, but they emotionally cling to it. Ultimately, Zondervan, the publishers of the NIV, are interested in being able to sell their translation and recoup their investment. To them, if that meant appeasing a particular segment of the Christian population that is known to be frequent Bible purchasers, then so be it.
That said, I don't think that it is sufficient reason to discredit the whole work. There are no perfect translations. Each has its own inherent problems. Serious Bible study students come upon one such as this pretty easily and can make an internal adjustment in their thinking as they read it. For casual readers, it probably goes right over their head. That doesn't make it right; it would be better if it read "young woman", but eventually one has to pick a version and use it.
I think the NIV is better than the KJV. It may not be as good as the New Revised Standard Version which does properly translate this verse and only makes mention of the term "virgin" in a footnote indicating that it is found in Greek translations not the original Hebrew. But for me, there is also the issue of access to other helps such as concordances, commentaries, curriculum, etc. that are based on the text of a particular translation. And so I use the NIV and try to be aware of its imperfections, as I would also have to be if I used the NRSV or any other version. What I would like to see is for the publisher to include a footnote in future editions, like the publishers of the New Living Bible did, indicating the use of "young woman" as an appropriate translation of the text. Responding to exactly those types of concerns Zondervan did eventually publish a revision of their NIV called "Todays New International Version" that does at least footnote the passage and provide the "young woman" translation in the footnote, but I'm not going to switch from the NIV to some other new translation every time someone comes up with an "imporvement" in the translation process. If they actually came up with a perfect translation I would, but knowing that all of them have their failings, I'm not so quick to switch.
I began using the NIV when I was in seminary (some of these better versions were not available yet) and now I'm comfortable working with it and don't feel like making the $ investment that switching to another version would entail at this point in my ministry. If I was just beginning, I might be more likely to use the NRSV, but then again, I might not, as there are still more resources available for the NIV than anything except the KJV.
Last edited: