Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The New International Version

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion The New International Version

    Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

    The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

    Thanks..

  • #2
    Poochie,

    I am glad you are fed from the NIV.

    Not sure what your question is in that post...?

    I am not a fan of the NIV. (Nearly Inspired Version).. (jk)

    I like to study the KJV, and sometimes the NKJV. I am not a KJV only guy, as I do not believe it is the words written on the page that make scripture 'quick and living' but the Spirit, and the Word!

    I do not find the power, or the poetry in the NIV.

    I would love to read the original Hebrew, and to a lesser extent the original Greek. I do enjoy the little bits of research into the original languages I have done, and I find they have never taken anytihng away from scripture... rather adding to it.

    Blessings,
    Last edited by Amos_with_goats; Jan 18th 2009, 03:25 AM. Reason: to add the words 'that make scripture'
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * ** * *** * * * * ***** * * * * ** * * * * ** ** * *
    ~ * You get 10 'reps' to bless others with each day... don't log off until you have used them up......
    ....Live your life the same way.... ~ *

    Please pray for the 'Persecuted Church'.


    Bible Forums Vision: "To be a community of believers who are actively engaged in pursuing the truth of God as revealed in His Son Jesus Christ by way of studying the Scriptures diligently in order to discover this truth."


    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by poochie View Post
      Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

      The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

      Thanks..
      There are translational inaccuracies in all of the various versions. This includes the KJV as well. I think the main concern with some of newer translations is that they are based on what many feel to be "corrupted manuscripts"

      The KJV is based on the "recieved text" complied by Erasmus:

      excerpt from Peter van Minden:

      "The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516. A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own."

      The newer versions including the NIV were based on Westcott and Horts compilation or Tischendorf's with some having the benefit of the earlier Chester Beatty manuscripts thrown in:

      "Tischendorf and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two" rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts. The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.
      In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."


      My conclusion is that all the translations reflect the foundational doctrines in the way that God intended and that no doctrine of the new testement is seriously affected by the differences. I still use the KJV much of the time but I have the liberty to study them all. At last count I think I have 30 different ones as well as copies of all the various manuscripts.

      I'm sure some KJV poeplem will respond about the diffrences in the two main collections of manuscripts in Col. For example:
      Col 1:14

      14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
      KJV


      Col 1:14
      in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
      NIV



      As you can see the NIV leaves out "blood" in this verse but it has it in other passages so it's not as if the doctrine of blood atonement is abolished by the NIV. However, read whick ever one you are comfortable with.
      Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is not the POINT of my topic. But regardless James White explains the reasoning behind the NIV on the blood verse (Col 1:14) but its not only the NIV that leaves it out, but also the ESV. After I studied the evidences I saw that the NIV and ESV translate the passage correctly.


        Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
        There are translational inaccuracies in all of the various versions. This includes the KJV as well. I think the main concern with some of newer translations is that they are based on what many feel to be "corrupted manuscripts"

        The KJV is based on the "recieved text" complied by Erasmus:

        excerpt from Peter van Minden:

        "The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516. A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own."

        The newer versions including the NIV were based on Westcott and Horts compilation or Tischendorf's with some having the benefit of the earlier Chester Beatty manuscripts thrown in:

        "Tischendorf and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two" rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts. The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.
        In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."


        My conclusion is that all the translations reflect the foundational doctrines in the way that God intended and that no doctrine of the new testement is seriously affected by the differences. I still use the KJV much of the time but I have the liberty to study them all. At last count I think I have 30 different ones as well as copies of all the various manuscripts.

        I'm sure some KJV poeplem will respond about the diffrences in the two main collections of manuscripts in Col. For example:
        Col 1:14

        14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
        KJV


        Col 1:14
        in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
        NIV



        As you can see the NIV leaves out "blood" in this verse but it has it in other passages so it's not as if the doctrine of blood atonement is abolished by the NIV. However, read whick ever one you are comfortable with.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by poochie View Post
          This is not the POINT of my topic. But regardless James White explains the reasoning behind the NIV on the blood verse (Col 1:14) but its not only the NIV that leaves it out, but also the ESV. After I studied the evidences I saw that the NIV and ESV translate the passage correctly.

          You said this:
          Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV.
          I was just offering a suggestion as to why they might frown. The point I was making is that all of the translations are acceptable. I can't find one that violates any major doctrine and I have most of them. The only notable exception is my copy of the JW's kingdom translation of new testament greek.
          Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

          Comment


          • #6
            They frown because they were raised in anti NIV churches and cultures. I was not as I grew up in a New-Evangelical background.

            Its interesting that they frown upon the NIV, when the ESV translates things very similar in many areas.

            I'll never forget in a Theology course one instructor was downplaying the NIV for a particular verse, when I had the NIV and the ESV side by side in my computer Bible and told the class that the ESV translated this one verse (cant remember) the exact same way! The teacher was surprised!


            Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
            You said this:


            I was just offering a suggestion as to why they might frown. The point I was making is that all of the translations are acceptable. I can't find one that violates any major doctrine and I have most of them. The only notable exception is my copy of the JW's kingdom translation of new testament greek.

            Comment


            • #7
              I tend to lean towards the set of texts behind the modern versions as being the more reliable texts. But that aside, no matter what texts are used we're not going to get a perfect translation.

              The LXX was not a perfect translation, but the apostles quoted it to establish doctrine and called it "scripture".

              The NIV can be used to establish doctrine, and I firmly believe that it is "scripture". Same goes for the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NAB, JB, etc.

              Not that I'm any kind of scholar, and I know that my opinion really holds very little water, but the NIV has my endorsement.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by poochie View Post
                Many of the good & Godly well meaning people in my area frown upon the NIV. Perhaps some of you here do as well. But the point of this post is to find arguments or books in support of it. I am aware of 2 books (How to read the Bible for all its Worth, & The King James Version Only Controversy), but there has to be many more. Perhaps some of you can give some good endorsements. I primarily use this version for my devotions and have enjoyed it all my life.

                The point of the Bible is transformation and the NIV has accomplished that to MILLIONS of lost souls and active believers.

                Thanks..
                I'll be getting a good dose of NIV over the next year. I wanted to use a chronological Bible for my daily "read the Bible in a year" readings this year. The most economically priced chronological Bible which fit the bill was an NIV translation. It didn't bother me as I have nothing against the NIV but it isn't my first preference. It's probably best suited for this type of "big picture" story driven reading of the Bible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


                  One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


                  Micah 5:2

                  My trusty NKJV says

                  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                  Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
                  Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
                  The One to be Ruler in Israel,
                  Whose goings forth are from of old,
                  From everlasting.Ē

                  NIV says :

                  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                  though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,
                  out of you will come for me
                  one who will be ruler over Israel,
                  whose origins [b] are from of old,
                  from ancient times."


                  So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


                  What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

                  Mine says,

                  "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


                  NIV says,

                  "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


                  Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


                  Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

                  1 John 5:6-8...


                  NKJV

                  "This is He who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


                  NIV


                  "This is the one who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

                  Huh??


                  Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


                  So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


                  I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

                  I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I enjoy my NIV. It's what I was raised on so it is the most familiar to me. It also makes me feel like God's word is in my own language.
                    Psalm 19:14
                    Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JesusMySavior View Post
                      Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


                      One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


                      Micah 5:2

                      My trusty NKJV says

                      "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                      Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
                      Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
                      The One to be Ruler in Israel,
                      Whose goings forth are from of old,
                      From everlasting.Ē

                      NIV says :

                      "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                      though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,
                      out of you will come for me
                      one who will be ruler over Israel,
                      whose origins [b] are from of old,
                      from ancient times."


                      So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


                      What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

                      Mine says,

                      "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


                      NIV says,

                      "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


                      Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


                      Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

                      1 John 5:6-8...


                      NKJV

                      "This is He who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


                      NIV


                      "This is the one who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

                      Huh??


                      Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


                      So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


                      I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

                      I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


                      I really don't think this was the intention of the OP. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue in a separate thread devoted to this topic.

                      But to respond to your post . . . Nuh-uh!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't like to use the NIV because some of the translations are iffy.....but for the majority of the time I believe its accurate. My preference is the NKJV or the Greek New Testament/Septuagint
                        Matthew 10:39
                        He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Problem is, that I know better and after having studied the textual issues and data I can vouch that the NIV and modern translations are using the more reliable of manuscript evidences. Take the Johanna comma that was inserted by Erasamus for example which is contained in both KJV/NKJV.

                          And another verse that the NIV translators WISELY removed.

                          Jer 18:21 (KJV) Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.

                          Jer 18:21 (ESV) Therefore deliver up their children to famine;
                          give them over to the power of the sword;
                          let their wives become childless and widowed.
                          May their men meet death by pestilence,
                          their youths be struck down by the sword in battle.

                          Jer 18:21 (NIV) So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.

                          If you read the KJVO Controversy by James White will you see the many textual issues in the KJV and the reasons why the NIV and other modern translations are using more recent and reliable manuscript evidences and therefore provider a more accurate translation from the original tongues.




                          Originally posted by JesusMySavior View Post
                          Unfortunately, many versions of the Bible contrast invariably from the original KJV and NKJV, leaving out many terms or verses that the Vatican and NU-text thought were "unimportant" or "inaccurate". Coincidentally, it's the subtle yet sure "anchor" verses that are left out in many of these modern versions - gradually "wearing down" the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and denying the power of God to help those who believe by omitting verses.


                          One must only look at a few verses to see that the POWER of the living God is sapped out of these corrupted instruction manuals.


                          Micah 5:2

                          My trusty NKJV says

                          "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                          Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
                          Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
                          The One to be Ruler in Israel,
                          Whose goings forth are from of old,
                          From everlasting.Ē

                          NIV says :

                          "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
                          though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,
                          out of you will come for me
                          one who will be ruler over Israel,
                          whose origins [b] are from of old,
                          from ancient times."


                          So is our Lord from everlasting or did He have an origin somewhere? Doesn't that contrast sharply between Colossians 1 that says He is from the foundations of the world and all things were made by Him?


                          What about Romans 8? Here's verses 1-2.

                          Mine says,

                          "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."


                          NIV says,

                          "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [???] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "


                          Is it just me or is there a gigantic chunk missing here? Must we walk by the Spirit and abide in our Lord or can we simply quote this verse without the fear of God in our hearts?


                          Although I don't clearly understand this one, I feel compelled to add it :

                          1 John 5:6-8...


                          NKJV

                          "This is He who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."


                          NIV


                          "This is the one who came by water and bloodóJesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: [in where?] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

                          Huh??


                          Forget corrputing the verse, let's just change the whole thing.


                          So though 80% of it may appear to be similar or the same, that 20% that is changed is more than likely tampered with for a reason. Remember that the Vatican tried to destroy the original manuscripts, and instead created their own version, which they deem "more accurate". More than likely the copy you have in your hand is a corrupted translation that comes from that antichrist organization who killed Christians and martyred the saints. All the while they taught in their schools that the Word of God is flawed and no one can truly know all of it, which is why they omitted certain verses because they weren't "approved of". That is a lie from the pit of ghenna.


                          I used to think it didn't matter but after submurging myself in the KJV/NKJV, and comparing them to the modern translations (NLT, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, etc), there's no comparison. It's a carbon copy but most of the power has been drained out of the scriptures.

                          I won't call you a heretic for using the NIV, but I know I could never turn back. I hope that whatever you have learned from it (that is of God) will take root in your life to help you bear fruit even more than a hundredfold.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It was not. But like usual... We wont go there...

                            Originally posted by Psalms Fan View Post
                            I really don't think this was the intention of the OP. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue in a separate thread devoted to this topic.

                            But to respond to your post . . . Nuh-uh!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              1 Corinthians 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

                              I use the NIV to read, the KJV to study, and other versions to refer to (ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc..).

                              I find the best thing for me is the above and, as the verse I opened up with shows, using the version another is more comfortable with is always my goal.

                              If someone says to me "I only believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God", then though I disagree, I won't argue. I would then use the KJV to back what I say.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X