The Quality of the NIV Translation

As anyone who has compared Bible translations knows, each one is different. Many of the differences are simple matters of word choice between two or more words that mean the same thing. Many of the differences amount to a simple reordering of the words or phrases in a sentence. Some differences are just spellings of the same word. However, many differences involve completely new wording or phrasing, omissions, or insertions. If the differences change the concept dramatically, or alter doctrines, or add or remove thoughts from the original text, these differences merit close scrutiny.

To avoid the confusion and difficulty of trying to cover all translations at once, in this thread we will set our sights on the New International Version (NIV), in comparison to the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorised Version (AV). The King James Version has remained the standard English Bible for several centuries, and is still today the most widely distributed Bible in the world. However, the New International Version has received a great deal of attention, and has been marketed as a modern-language Bible of superior translation quality. The NIV is currently the top-selling Bible, surpassing all other Bibles in new sales. As the topic for this thread shows, it is the level of quality in this popular Bible which we will investigate here.

Instead of going into all of the history of these two translations, we will prove them by their textual and doctrinal qualities alone. Sometimes this requires some use of the Hebrew or Greek lexicons in a concordance. Nevertheless, before we launch into the text itself, it should be understood that this issue is not limited to English, for the real reason for the differences we will find lies in the fact that these two English translations have come from different source manuscripts. Unless you read Hebrew and Greek fluently, where the real differences are, it is easiest to compare their English translations.

To establish some minimal background, let us begin by defining the two lines of manuscripts from which the KJV and the NIV are translated. These are terms which may occur frequently in subsequent discussion.

Sources and manuscripts/aliases for...
King James Version (KJV) / Authorised Version (AV)		New International Version (NIV)
Textus Receptus / Received Text		Codex Alexandrinus / Alexandrian Text / Codex A
aka Majority Text		aka Egyptian/Coptic Text
aka Syrian Text [so-named by Hort]		aka Neutral Text (NU) [so-named by Westcott and Hort]
Byzantine Text		Codex Sinaiticus
Waldensian Text / Italic Bible		Codex Vaticanus
Peshitto (Syrian)		Vulgate (Latin)

These represent the major manuscripts of the two branches of the Bible, but this list is not comprehensive. The "Majority Text" is so-called because over 90% of all Biblical manuscripts in existence today (over 5300) are of this line, and they all very nearly agree with each other (99% agreement). The outlying manuscripts, such as the Codex Alexandrinus and similar codices, frequently differ among themselves, and with the Majority Text. In spite of this, and the fact that they are so few, many scholars still prefer them because they believe them to be older manuscripts, and therefore are presumed nearer to the originals. It should be noted that no original autographs have survived to the present. All of the manuscripts used in our Bibles today are copies.

Again, the focus of the discussion will be placed on the doctrines and the text presented in each of these, and not so much on their pedigrees. However, the reader should be aware of the reason that these translations differ--that it goes far beyond a simple matter of re-translating the Bible into "modern English." It is worthy of note that these same issues stemming from the two lines of manuscripts are present with Bible translations in any other language, and that this is not an "English-only" dilemma.

From here on out, we will begin looking closely at textual comparisons between the KJV and the NIV translations, keeping in mind that the differences largely stem from the source manuscripts chosen, and do not always relate to the accuracy or skill of the translators.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This post reserved for future use as an index to this topic. Note that I will add sections to this topic as I have time to do so.

Topical list of links to textual comparisons in this thread

Changes in Numbers
Fasting
The Sabbath
The State of the Dead
Nakedness and Sexuality
The Law

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of all the errors in translation which one might consider, errors in number translations are the least excusable. Numbers are numbers, and are easy to translate accurately. Failure in accuracy here is indicative of an attitude that the details do not matter, and casts shadows upon the rest of the translation.

The following table lists differences in number translations for some New Testament texts. You will see each text with the KJV and NIV beside each other, and below them in the same color block, my comments about the differences.

You will also see that each text is a link. Those links go to BlueLetterBible.org, and are for the text in question, so that you may look up and verify any of the facts presented here. I will try to provide these links throughout this topic. Blue Letter Bible also has online commentaries and each text is linked to the original languages, which you can choose to view, and each word in every verse is linked to a lexicon of definitions. So, you are able to further study the differences as much as you choose.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18, KJV)	I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18, NIV)
But I guess the numbers just disappeared!
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? (Matthew 6:27, KJV)	Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life [fn2]? Footnote: Or single cubit to his height (Matthew 6:27, NIV)
The NIV here meddles with the text, and turns Jesus' statement into one that can be countered. It may be possible to live longer through various means, especially when we speak of a mere "hour." It is not possible, however, to grow taller by worrying.
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, (Matthew 11:2, KJV)	When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples (Matthew 11:2, NIV)
John certainly must have had more than two disciples. John selected two for this special errand. Yet the NIV would make it appear as though he sent all of his disciples, and that the number is inconsequential.
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. (Matthew 13:33, KJV)	He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount [fn2] of flour until it worked all through the dough.” Footnote: Greek three satas (probably about 1/2 bushel or 22 liters) (Matthew 13:33, NIV)
Per the NIV rendering, the number must not matter. Do the translators believe that Christ's exact words are unimportant? Or perhaps just the numbers are not?
He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat? (Mark 6:37, KJV)	But he answered, “You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “That would take eight months of a man's wages [fn5]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?” Footnote: Greek take two hundred denarii (Mark 6:37, NIV)
Again, the numbers have been altered. Considering that numbers, of all words, are the easiest things to translate, and do not change meaning from one language to another, this seems inexcusable.
And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. (Mark 11:4, KJV)	They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, (Mark 11:4, NIV)
More "details" are dropped here.
And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? (Luke 7:19, KJV)	he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Luke 7:19, NIV)
This is the second time the NIV omits mentioning the number of John's disciples who were sent to Jesus.
After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. (Luke 10:1, KJV)	After this the Lord appointed seventy-two [fn1] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. Footnote: Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17 (Luke 10:1, NIV)
Here we have 70 versus 72. The NIV admits in a footnote that they probably should have said 70. The "some manuscripts" in their note refer to the Majority Text, and would more accurately read "the majority of manuscripts."
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (Luke 10:17, KJV)	The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” (Luke 10:17, NIV)
This time the footnote is omitted. You would only see it if you had just read verse 1.
And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. (Luke 16:6, KJV)	” ‘Eight hundred gallons [fn1] of olive oil,’ he replied. “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’ Footnote: Greek one hundred batous (probably about 3 kiloliters) (Luke 16:6, NIV)
Here we see completely different numbers again. The NIV footnote admits the numbers were changed from the Greek. Why didn't they translate accurately, and put the "eight hundred gallons" explanation in the footnote instead? Apparently, numbers aren't that important to them, or else they feel above scripture, and can adjust the original however they wish.
Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. (Luke 16:7, KJV)	“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’ “ ‘A thousand bushels [fn2] of wheat,’ he replied. “He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’ Footnote: Greek one hundred korous (probably about 35 kiloliters) (Luke 16:7, NIV)
Again, the NIV admits changing the numbers: This time, by a factor of 10.
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. (Luke 22:14, KJV)	When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. (Luke 22:14, NIV)
Does the number of apostles not matter?
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (Luke 24:13, KJV)	Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles [fn1] from Jerusalem. Footnote: Greek sixty stadia (about 11 kilometers) (Luke 24:13, NIV)
Once again, the NIV trades positions of what should be in the footnote (the explanation) and what should be in the text (the translation). By so doing, the translators set themselves up as part authors of the Bible.
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. (John 2:6, KJV)	Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. [fn1] Footnote: Greek two to three metretes (probably about 75 to 115 liters) (John 2:6, NIV)
Here we see the numbers adjusted by a factor of ten again.
Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. (John 6:7, KJV)	Philip answered him, “Eight months' wages [fn1] would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!” Footnote: Greek two hundred denarii (John 6:7, NIV)
While I do not especially like the use of "pennyworth" in the KJV here, at least the KJV correctly translated the numbers. The NIV has completely changed the text here!
So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. (John 6:19, KJV)	When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, [fn2] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. Footnote: Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers) (John 6:19, NIV)
By now we begin to expect such changes of numbers in the NIV.
Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: (John 11:18, KJV)	Bethany was less than two miles [fn1] from Jerusalem, Footnote: Greek fifteen stadia (about 3 kilometers) (John 11:18, NIV)
Not only has the NIV changed the numbers, but also part of the sense is lost here.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. (John 19:39, KJV)	He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. [fn4] Footnote: Greek a hundred litrai (about 34 kilograms) (John 19:39, NIV)
The KJV here again attaches a questionable English unit to the number, but the number itself is accurately retained--not so with the NIV.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. (John 20:26, KJV)	A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” (John 20:26, NIV)
There seems no excuse for this. Eight days and one week are not equivalent. Numbers are the easiest of all words to translate--why the error?
And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. (John 21:8, KJV)	The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. [fn2] Footnote: Greek about two hundred cubits (about 90 meters) (John 21:8, NIV)
The NIV cuts the number in half, and translates the actual Greek only in the footnote.
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. (Acts 25:6, KJV)	After spending eight or ten days with them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. (Acts 25:6, NIV)
Since when does "more than ten days" equal "eight or ten"?
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:13, KJV)	and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” [fn2] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. Footnote: Daniel 7:13 (Revelation 1:13, NIV)
The number seven here is highly significant. That it is omitted in the NIV should be highly significant too.
And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. (Revelation 16:21, KJV)	From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible. (Revelation 16:21, NIV)
Here, the KJV got it just right. It is the NIV which both changes the number and attaches a questionable English unit to it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not too many people know what a "furlong" is; and how "nigh" is "nigh"? But, if you are told two miles--well, that's close.

Because they went from cubits (ab't 18 inches) to yards (36 inches).

I agree; not too many people are aware of the significance of the number seven and the NIV translators showed it.

I agree that miles explains the concept well, but this is the kind of "change" which is more appropriate for the margin, than to tinker with the original text itself.

On another level, most children do not understand the words "commit adultery" either, and yet this does not stop parents from teaching them the Ten Commandments. In due time, we learn the meanings, and dictionaries exist for a reason.


Right. But let's suppose, for a moment, that they decided to translate "forty days" into something like "five weeks and five days," or "a month and ten days." Would that be a problem? The point I'm making is that when you adjust the numbers, there is potential loss of significance. We know forty days is significant in the Bible. We know many other numbers are significant. Are we savvy enough to say the numbers in this verse are NOT significant? How would we know?

One that still intrigues me, for example, is the number 153. Why does the Bible tell us that was the number of fish they caught? I still have a ways to go to grasp that one, but that it is significant is certain, or this detail would not have been given us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well here is what I posted on another site which goes directly to this issue...The Textus Receptus or Majority text keeps any one person or group of persons from making changes that can obscure or drastically change the meaning but if they take it out completely then that causes a real problem as one doesnt even have words to check. Here is what having such large numbers of the Textus Receptus does..

"THE MAJORITY TEXT PRINCIPLE

If one will place all the texts along side each other and then see the most common words, he will see the truth through the error. One error by one man can never outnumber the truth presented by the majority. Remember that God promised that He would preserve His Word. This is a Biblical principle, as shown in Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16 and II Corinthians 13:1.

The Bible way to determine truth is to collect all the witnesses and examine the facts that each one has and trust the things that the majority agree upon. All men at the beginning had the truth. As error began to creep in, a need appeared to find the truth again. As far back as the Syriac text in A. D. 150, this majority text principle was used as the common way to find the truth.

All of the texts were put together and the agreeing words were recorded, and God's Word was considered complete. Textus Receptus is a Latin term meaning: "Text Received", or "Text Approved", or "Text Accepted". This name was placed on the text in 1624 by the first men who put it into print in one volume. In 1624 this was the text that had long been accepted. Prior to that time it was called: The Majority Text. In the preface to the Greek text the publishers wrote: "The text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt....."

Now here is a good explanation by Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and Dennis W. Costella of how some of the modern translations including the NIV have picked up corruption..

"...In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the "many which corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not surprising in studying church history to discover that such attempts to corrupt the Word of God were clearly evident in the altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting to be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries....

It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history and preservation of the true Word of God down through the centuries. However, in the providence of God, two very important things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries for which we should all be eternally grateful. First, was the invention of the printing press and second, the Protestant Reformation. It was the combination of these two developments that made possible the translation and publication of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift of God and its subsequent translation into every known major language in the world has changed the course of history and we enjoy its benefits today.

In the latter part of the 19th Century......Theories and methods of "higher criticism" and "textual criticism" were developed and couched in such scholarly language that most people failed to recognize that these were actually attacks upon the Word of God - even though carefully disguised as an effort to "supply the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament" and to "render the New Testament more generally intelligible." The rush toward new versions was on and though the early progress was slow, we are seeing the results today..... In 1881, influenced by and sympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a different version of the Greek New Testament - one which differed from the Textus Receptus (the underlying Greek text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places.

This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. It gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844....

Tischendorf, who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least 12,000 changes that had been made on this manuscript by others than the original copyist. It is difficult to understand why such documents as these could lead one to ignore the simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all known Scripture- related manuscripts..."




"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions.

As Richard pointed out, the real trouble is in the underlying manuscripts. There have been corruptions in the text. However, in the post which compared simple numbers, side by side, it should be evident that the NIV translators were also careless in translating the Word of God, in that they felt at liberty to translate numbers however they felt best, and then relegate the original translation to a footnote. They should have done the opposite, that is, add their own notes to the footnote, and keep the original text in its true form.

Seeing how Richard had trouble quoting the HTML-enabled table, from now on, I will try to post the tables in their own posts, and ask that you please not attempt to quote them. I will make additional comments separately, so that you may quote those, if you choose. If you need to quote something from the table, you must do so via "copy and paste" rather than using the "quote" function of the forum.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the following post you will see a table showing how the NIV is trying to water down the Word of God and to make your worship a little "simpler." This is handily accomplished by undermining the need to fast and pray. Will you not be happy to know longer need to fast? Good! Then go and buy yourself an NIV Bible so that you will not need to fast anymore!

This is a classic example of "dumbing it down" to make our worship more "comfortable."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO QUOTE THIS HTML-ENABLED POST

Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him. (Daniel 6:18, KJV)	Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep. (Daniel 6:18, NIV)
The concepts of "fasting" and "without eating" are different. "Fasting" clearly indicates deliberate abstinence from food. "Without eating" here can be either voluntary or involuntary.
Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Matthew 15:32, KJV)	Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32, NIV)
Here again the NIV avoids the term "fasting."
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21, KJV)	(Matthew 17:21, NIV)
In this case, the NIV simply omits the entire verse. Why?
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. (Mark 8:3, KJV)	If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.” (Mark 8:3, NIV)
Again, being "hungry" versus "fasting" are two different things. One is a voluntary act, associated with worship, while the other is involuntary.
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29, KJV)	He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer. [fn2] ” Footnote: Some manuscripts prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29, NIV)
This is a misquote of Jesus' words to the disciples! Remember the story? How the disciples were unable to cast out the demon? In the footnote here, the NIV admits that they should have translated differently. The "some manuscripts" would more accurately be said as "most manuscripts."
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30, KJV)	Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me (Acts 10:30, NIV)
In this text, the omission of the word "fasting" is crucial. Is fasting the same as praying? Many people pray while fasting, but most people do not fast while praying!
And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (Acts 27:33, KJV)	Just before dawn Paul urged them all to eat. “For the last fourteen days,” he said, “you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food–you haven't eaten anything. (Acts 27:33, NIV)
Again the NIV avoids the term "fasting."
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV)	Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:5, NIV)
Again the NIV omits the term "fasting."
In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; (2 Corinthians 6:5, KJV)	in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; (2 Corinthians 6:5, NIV)
Once again, fasting and hunger are two different concepts, and once again, the NIV avoids the term "fasting."
In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Corinthians 11:27, KJV)	I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Corinthians 11:27, NIV)
Again, the NIV avoids the term "fasting." In this case, the verse is more than clear that being hungry and fasting are two separate things, because Paul is claiming to have endured both of them.

Moses, Elijah, Daniel, David, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jesus, Paul, and many others in the Bible are recorded as having fasted and prayed. The concept is an important one. During the Day of Atonement, the Israelites fasted. Mrs. White confirms to us that we are now living in the anti-typical Day of Atonement.

Obviously, however, the devil would not like for us to fast and pray.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.