What's Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lewis, Jan 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AKJVReader

    AKJVReader Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Earth 1.0
    Christian:
    Yes
    The problem is that if you read this thread from the beginning you will see that me, Felix and some others have shown the NIV to have corruptions in it.

    I would like to see Free refute or someone else refute what Israelsson just posted about the NASB.
     
  2. kiwimac

    kiwimac Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Deepest, Darkest NZ
    Christian:
    Yes
    The NIV, like all English translations, is better than some (the KJV, for instance) and worse than others (NASB, as an example.) All translation work from one language to another involves 'best guess' in some areas.
     
  3. Vic C.

    Vic C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,235
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Christian:
    Yes
    :confused

    The NIV better than the KJV? Hardly better, but yes, easier to read. It's reading level is equal to 7th.-8th. reading. The KJV is somewhere about 11th.

    Plus, no decent translator makes "best guesses". :nono2 They make educated decisions. :yes Guessing is not even in the realm of interpretation.
     
  4. EricTheBaptist

    EricTheBaptist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Indiana
    Christian:
    Yes
    Ah more KJV fanatics criticizing the NIV. There's nothing wrong with the NIV, I read it just about everyday and haven't found anything wrong with it. It's just that ignorant people dive head first into the NIV and say "Oh look it took out a verse and the wording is different! It's demon possessed!!". Anyone who would do the proper research would find that the NIV was written in 1960s-70s where as the KJV is 1600s. So that's 350+ years of new manuscripts that have been discovered!

    Please read the preface and become more educated on why the NIV is "evil".

    The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.

    Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.

    How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went on to one of the General Editorial committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough version. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.

    All of this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one.

    From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.

    In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.

    The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

    A sensitive feeling for the style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly, the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice - once before and once after the last major revision - and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translations were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people - young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.

    Concern for clear and natural English - that the New International Version should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic, contemporary but not dated - motivated the translators and consultants. At the same time, they tried to reflect the differing styles of the biblical writer. In view of the international use of English, the translators sought to avoid obvious Americanisms on the one hand and obvious Anglicisms on the other. A British edition reflects the comparatively few differences of significant idiom and of spelling.

    As for the traditional pronouns "thou," "thee" and "thine" in references to the Deity, the translators judged that to use the archaisms (along with old verb forms such as "doest," "wouldest" and "hadst") would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.

    For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a varient Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variant within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions - the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Pe****ta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.

    The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testaments textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testaments were used.

    There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible. In 1973 the New Testament in the New International Version was published. Since then, suggestions for corrections and revisions have been received from various sources. The Committee on Bible Translation carefully considered the suggestions and adopted a number of them. These are incorporated in the first printing of the entire Bible.

    As in other ancient documents, the precise meaning of the biblical texts is something uncertain. This is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts than with the Greek text. Although archaeological and linguistic discoveries in this century aid in understanding difficult passages, some uncertainties remain. The more significant of these have been called to the reader's attention in the footnotes.

    In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "Lord" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign Lord."

    Because for most readers today the phrase "the Lord of hosts" and "God of hosts" have little meaning, this version renders them "the Lord Almighty" and "God Almighty." These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, "he who is sovereign over all the 'hosts' (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the 'hosts' (armies) of Israel." For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth ("hosts" or "Almighty") and Shaddai (which can also be translated "Almighty"), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered "the Lord, the Lord Almighty."

    As for other proper nouns, the familiar spellings of the King James Version are generally retained. Names traditionally spelled with "ch," except where it is final, are usually spelled in this translation with "k" or "c," since the biblical languages do not have the sound that "ch" frequently indicates in English - for example, in chant. For well-known name such as Zechariah, however, the traditional spelling has been retained. Variation in the spelling of names in the original languages has usually not been indicated. Where a person or place has two or more different names in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts, the more familiar one has generally been used, with footnotes where needed.

    To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. If there was uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets. Also for the sake of clarity or style, nouns, including some proper nouns, are sometimes substituted for pronouns, and vice versa. And though the Hebrew writers often shifted back and forth between first, second and third personal pronouns without change of antecedent, this translation often makes them uniform, in accordance with English style and without the use of footnotes.

    Poetical passages are printed as poetry, that is, with indentation of lines and with separate stanzas. These are generally designed to reflect the structure of Hebrew poetry. The poetry is normally characterized by parallelism in balanced lines. Most of the poetry in the Bible is in the Old Testament, and scholars differ regarding the scansion of Hebrew lines. The translators determined the stanza divisions for the most part by analysis of the subject matter. The stanzas therefore serve as poetic paragraphs.

    As an aid to the reader, italicized sectional headings are inserted in most of the books. They are not to be regarded as part of the NIV text, are not for oral reading, and are not intended to dictate the interpretation of the sections they head.

    The footnotes in this version are of several kinds, most of which need no explanation. Those giving alternative translations begin with "Or" and generally introduce the alternative with the last word preceding it in the text, except when it is a single-word alternative; in poetry quoted in a footnote a slant mark indicates a line division. Footnotes introduced by "Or" do not have uniform significance. In some cases two possible translations were considered to have about equal validity. In other cases, though the translators were convinced that the translation in the text was correct, they judged that another interpretation was possible and of sufficient importance to be represented in a footnote.

    In the New Testament, footnotes that refer to uncertainty regarding the original text are introduced by "Some manuscripts" or similar expressions. In the Old Testament, evidence for the reading chosen is given first and evidence for the alternative is added after a semicolon (for example: Septuagint; Hebrew father). In such notes the term "Hebrew" refers to the Masoretic Text.

    It should be noted that minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, articles of clothing and jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be identified with precision. Also measures of capacity in the biblical period are particularly uncertain (see the table of weights and measures following the text).

    Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task. We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many into a better understanding of the Holy Scriptures and fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures so faithfully testify.

    The Committee on Bible Translation

    June 1978

    Revised August 1983

    http://hissheep.org/kjv/preface_to_the_niv_bible.html source.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2011
  5. Gazelle

    Gazelle Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    883
    Christian:
    Yes
  6. EricTheBaptist

    EricTheBaptist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Indiana
    Christian:
    Yes
    The NIV is made to where anyone can read it with ease. Whenever I pick up a KJV I feel like I'm reading broken English.
     
  7. jasoncran

    jasoncran Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    38,271
    Christian:
    Yes
    how is it that the poster with the worse grammer on the board can easily understand the kjv? and i am not a kjvo type.
     
  8. Bob Carabbio

    Bob Carabbio Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    Glenn Heights, TX
    Nothing, of course

    "Why Would Anyone Use the NIV?:

    No reason not to.

    The BEST Bible translation is THE ONE THAT GETS READ. And few of 'em ever are.

    I personally like the KJV - not because of any supposed "Inspiration" connected with it, but simply because I learned to read in it in the late '40s, and have been reading ot for over 60 years now. So I know most of the "Work arounds" for the areas of LOUSY translation, and I know most of the definitions of the archaic language.

    And being familiar with the text makes looking up stuff in "Quick Books", or Blue Letter Bible.com a snap!!!

    And BEST of all it's all FREE!!

    I'm "USED" to it, and really see no NEED to "Break in" any other translation, although I DID enjoy reading through the "Living when It first came out - kind of like a breath of "Fresh air", as it were.
     
  9. reba

    reba Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    45,860
    Location:
    State of Jefferson
    Christian:
    Yes
    Re: Nothing, of course

    This could be my post but Bob is a bit older.....:)
     
  10. Choosethisday

    Choosethisday Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    Camas Washington
    Christian:
    Yes
    I won't get into the meat of the argument here but those who slam the NIV simply have not studied the issue. I am not suggesting the NIV is the best translation although it likely is for most people most of the time. And some just prefer another translation for some other reason or purpose. Different traslations work best for people at different levels of maturity and different purposes, such as instense study or just as a daily read. I started my Christian life in a church where anything that didn't have the initials KJV was of the Devil or at least not worth looking at. It took many years to finally do the research and realize that one could be a God fearing and serving Christian and use something other than the KJV. There are many books and websites that deal with the KJV onlyism debate. For websites I would start with Bible.org. A book I have recommended is One Bible Only. It is a fairly quick read and yet still comprehensive enough to cover the issues. Also, for more carefull research there is a good list of even more comprehensive resources.
     
  11. Vic C.

    Vic C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,235
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Christian:
    Yes
  12. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    Now, while you do have me leaning more towards the NKJV, I must say that the author in the link you provided does employ at least some of the oft used fallacies of KJVOism.
     
  13. Romansonetwentytwo

    Romansonetwentytwo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Brooksville Fl
    Christian:
    Yes
    Lewis-
    I appreciate the posting and it's funny because I've been studying up on this very topic lately. I see some obvious flaws with the NIV translation. For instance in Luke 2:33 and where Joseph is changed to his father and in Luke 2:43 where Joseph and his mother is changed to "parents". Also in Luke 2:22 they changed "her" to "their" (days of purification). These three verses attacks the virgin birth, puts Joseph as Jesus' father and makes Christ a sinner. Those are some of the issues I have with this version. I agree that some of the attacks on the NIV are bogus, but feel that the wording and changes in some passages are sending the wrong message. I'm still studying this topic and it's been enjoyable to see the reactions of some when it comes to this. I found there is hardly middle ground it's either one way or the other so can't wait to put it all together and present it. Guess I'm guaranteed atleast a 50% approval rate. I will however say that the TNIV is total blasphemy. Thanks for your posting. God Bless.
    PHP:
     
  14. westtexas

    westtexas Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,263
    Christian:
    Yes
    Luke 2:33-Kai en o pater autou kai e meter thaumazontes epi tois laloumenois peri autou. (Interlinear Bible)

    Luke 2:43-.......egnosan oi goneis autou (Interlinear Bible)

    The Greek uses the word "pater-father" in Luke 2:33 and "goneis-parents" in Luke 2:43. In the verses you have listed the NIV is actually a more literal translation than the KJV is.

    Westtexas
     
  15. Ace1234

    Ace1234 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Christian:
    Yes
    Most don't realize the KJB is an anglican bible, it was rejected by early protestants.
    The KJV added words, used some latin translations from the RCC rejected by protestants, etc...These protestants were persecuted for loving their Geneva bible, the bible America was founded on.

    No bible is inspired, it is the work of men. There have been countless bibles and each differ in translation, culture and the politics of the time written. Why many are close, some have conflicting issues. Why scripture is inspired, I read no where the men that put the bibles together were inspired, in fact, many were right evil. Countless number of so called christians killed other christians over defining scripture, mostly led by political religious leaders as the populance was fed by the educated as to what to believe.

    Most would be shocked of added words, changed words, etc in many bibles. It's due to man trying to better define the intent of hebrew or greek
     
  16. Chan

    Chan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Christian:
    Yes
    The problem that I have with the NIV is the method of translation, dynamic equivalence. (I often half-jokingly refer to it as the "Not Inspired Version"). That particular method of translation requires too much interpretation on the part of the translators for my taste. I prefer formal equivalence translations because they don't require as much interpretation on the part of the translators. If someone is going to insist on using a dynamic equivalence translations, then one should never use them for anything more than devotional reading. Only formal equivalence translations should ever be used for serious study of the scriptures. When they try to pair "Study Bible" with any dynamic equivalence translation, it creates an oxymoron.
     
  17. Chan

    Chan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Christian:
    Yes
    The ESV (English Standard Version) is the same reading level as the NIV (7th grade), but is a formal equivalence translation. You should try it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page