Dear Editor:

In my opinion you did your readers a poor service in reprinting the Rev. Iain Murray’s article on “translations of the Bible” (Oct. ‘86). As one of those involved in the NIV translation process I shall chiefly speak about that which he says about it. In a communication to Mr. Murray I have already voiced my objections and have achieved some excellent understanding with him.

The article suggests that by taking just one commentary on Romans . that by Prof. John Murray, the readers will see that the NIV translations have “actually imposed their sense upon the text.” This is hardly a responsible bit of advice. I am one of Prof. Murray’s former students and esteem him highly as a biblical interpreter. But questions of translation simply cannot be solved by looking at one commentary. The things the Rev. Murray objects to he does not even inform us which they are can be found in other commentaries of equal orthodoxy.

Each Bible translation involves a degree of interpretation by the translator. Let the reader take the KJV rendering of Ps. 68:19: “. . . who daily loadeth us with benefits,” and note the heavy use of italics, showing that the KJV was not sure what the Hebrew meant but was trying to put its “sense” upon a difficult passage. Other translations, with equal reason, render the passage differently. The point is: translation involves making sense out of the Hebrew and the Greek, and one cannot always be one hundred percent sure.

As to the question which version is more literal and which more “dynamic,” why did the KJV render Luke 24:29 by using the two different words “abide” and “tarried” while actually the Greek uses the same word twice? It probably did so because it though this would make more elegant English. A good concern, which the NIV applies just a bit more consistently than the KJV did in its day. But in Luke 24 the NIV uses a form of “to stay” both times and is more literal than either the KJV or the New King James. And why did the KJV add the words “and looking in” in John 20:5 while they were not in the Greek? There is no need to add them, and the NIV does not do so. It is more literal than the KJV here. The same comparison can be made with some of the other supposedly literal versions. More than once the NIV sticks closer to the text than they do.

The New King James Version which the Rev. Murray seems to favor is not the KJV in modern garb. Here and there it shows differing translation approaches as I have shown in my review in the CRC weekly The Banner. Moreover, it does away completely with the “Thou” and the “Thee” forms in its address to God, something true KJV devotees will not like at all.

Each Bible translation, being the work of sinful men and women, has its faults. The NIV is not perfect either. But the things alleged against it in this article are completely unfounded . And I hope and pray that many more people will begin using the NIV at home, in study groups and in worship services. This is fully deserved.

Sincerely yours,

M.H. Woudstra