“we’re the Bible for the under 40 generation,” and “we’re not your father’s NIV.”

The new URL appears to be:

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Translation-Inaccuracies-in-the-TNIV

cRaig

Denies the Deity of Christ. Have you done a comparison yet?

It makes more sense to rely on the Scriptural usage of a word than to rely on the debates written in lexicons. Matthew 22:30; 24:38; Mark 12:25; Luke 17:27; and 20:35 create a clear distinction between (Strong’s) G1060 and G1061, that is, to marry versus to give in marriage. And, the word used in 1 Corinthians 7:38 is G1061, not G1060, so interpreting this difficult passage must begin from that starting point.

And, if you do that, you will see that it does make sense. You just have to figure out exactly what it’s saying. I think the confusion is over who “he” is referring to in each verse. It appears to be sway back and forth between the father and the potential husband.

There’s also the fact that, as I said, a modern translation of this passage teaches you to sin. It says to defraud, by promising marriage (via engagement/betrothal), and then not consummating in an actual marriage, which means you are giving someone anticipation of sex but then breaking your word (Psalm 15:4). This is defrauding and it is sinful (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

So, based on the biblical usage of the word being solely “to give in marriage” even to the point of lining it up side by side with the word “to marry,” and because the passage can make sense if studied out and you cry out for understanding (Proverbs 2), and because it would otherwise teach you to sin, it must be that this passage is incorrectly translated in most modern bibles.

If you look this up in BDAG there seems to be quite a bit of debate as to what is meant. There are a large number of other works going which use this in the sense of marry. This debate whether the word can mean “to marry” rather than “to give in marriage” seems to go back 130 years. And in context this seems to make more sense. Father’s don’t struggle with their will and sexual desires about whether to give their daughter’s in marriage; potential husbands do and they wouldn’t be doing the giving. So having the “he” here refer to the father given the “so then” (ὢστε) doesn’t make sense unless it was forced to be “given in marriage”.

I think this is a good example where the KJV mistranslated a subtlety not where modern translations are being politically correct.

The NKJV, KJV, NASB have correct translations of this passage.

This is a shift from the NIV (“From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another”) and it seems like an effort to more literally translate the preposition “anti” at the end of the verse. I think it reduces readability, though.