What's wrong with the NIV?

No English version is perfect...only the originals were. The NIV is no exception. It is not as 'precise', at times, as say the NASB, RSV or ESV, but still, it is a very-good translation. Personally, I would not 'shun' this version. It is a good one-not my favorite, but still a good translation.

 

I will tell some reasons why myself has not gotten a NIV. I had one many years ago, but burnt it while I was KJVO. Now afterwards it would have been handy in these discussions. The primary reason why the NIV is not a good version as compared to good versions is the fact of it being a Dynamic Equivalent version. I think NIV is one of the more moderate DE versions as compared to others, yet DE is a wrong philosophy when it comes to Bible translating. I recommend that Terry read Leland Ryken's new book, The Word of God in English - Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. This way you should get a better perspective on the translation theory issue.

Secondly I see that NIV is based on an inferior Greek NT edition. But you will probably disagree with me here.


Others more familiar with the defects of NIV can probably add more to this discussion.


Harald

 

I disagree,the AV is superior to the originals in that:
1.You can read it;you cannot read the originals.
2.The AV is available;the original are not.
3.The AV has been responsable for the conversion of more than 20 times the number ever converted under the "originals."

4.The original are not:"profitiable for Doctrine","for reproof","for correction","for instructions in righteousness",and they cannot "thouroughly furnish" a man of god "unto ALL good works." The AV can,and continues to do so for about 400 years now.But I digress.


Now back to the subject of this thread.

The NIV denies:
1.That "The love of money is THE ROOT of all evil" (1st Tim.6:10).

2.That Christ was God's child in Acts 4:27.

3.That you should "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1st Thess.5:22)

4.That "GOD was manifest in the flesh" (1st Tim.3:16).

5.The only commandment in the Bible to STUDY it (2nd Tim 2:15).

Also,

6.It also makes a liar out of the Holy Spirit in Mark 1:1-3.

7.Does away with "INFALLIBLE PROOFS" for the resurrection (Acts 1:3).

8.It destroys references on Christ's omnipresence(John 1:13).

9.It attacks the deity of Christ in Phillipians 2:4-5 and Luke 23:42.

10.Attacks the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33.

11.Cover up for Bible revisers and Translators as given by the Holy Spirit in Romans 1:18,Romans 1:25,and 2nd Corinthians 2:17.

[ April 12, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

JYD,

When will you stop posting these lies? These have all been tried before and have been convincingly answered. These things weren't true the first time you posted them and we showed you that. They will not become true by additional posting. Everytime you post them, they will be false.

Why do you insist on attacking God's word simply because you don't like it? The rest of here wish you would allow God to speak for himself and to speak in our language.

Please stop attacking God's word.

 

After the ESV/RSV the NIV is my favorite
translation. I love how it reads. It has
a wonderful English style that reads well
out loud. I think it will remain very,
very popular for many years. It seems to
have become the Bible for the English
speaking church. I always compare it
with the ESV, RSV, and NASB to "tighten"
it now and then. But with J. I. Packer
I say the NIV is a "stylish" and
"brilliant" translation. I use it all
the time.

 

Another reason that many churches use the NIV is (1)that so-many publishing companies use the NIV as their primary text, and (2)so-many of their own members buy the NIV as their primary Bible. I could certainly recommend this translation...as an Anglican, I must say that I only wish they had an NIV apocrypha.

 

Hi Terry,

I find the NIV inspiring for Bible reading. It's clarity of expression in English is good. However, my only caution is that if you are doing Bible study for purposes of teaching a class, or for leading a group Bible study, (not to mention preaching), I would recommend that your preparation be from study of multiple versions to help compensate for the occasions when the NIV might not get it right.

Thanks,

Chick

 

I disagree,the AV is superior to the originals in that:...</font>[/QUOTE]Ain't it too bad that God did not create a perfect Bible to begin with? If your Anglican Version is "superior to the originals," then the originals were less than perfect.

1.You can read it;you cannot read the originals.

You can read the Anglican Version, the NIV, the ESV, et al-- are they all superior to the orignials (which we cannot read) for that reason, or is your thinking stupid here?

2.The AV is available;the original are not.

Same principle... the NIV, NASB, ESV, et al, are available, while the originals are not.

3.The AV has been responsable for the conversion of more than 20 times the number ever converted under the "originals."

What makes up the lower limit as far as being superior to the imperfect originals? How many must a version be "responsible" for converting [or is it God Himself which converts?] in order to be called "superior?"

4.The original are not:"profitiable for Doctrine","for reproof","for correction","for instructions in righteousness",and they cannot "thouroughly furnish" a man of god "unto ALL good works." The AV can,and continues to do so for about 400 years now.

And what besides the Anglican Version can? Many.

But I digress.

No kiddin'?

The NIV denies:
1.That "The love of money is THE ROOT of all evil" (1st Tim.6:10).

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Timothy 6:10 riza &lt;4491&gt; gar &lt;1063&gt; {FOR A ROOT} pantwn &lt;3956&gt; twn &lt;3588&gt; {OF ALL} kakwn &lt;2556&gt; {EVILS} estin &lt;2076&gt; (5748) {IS} h &lt;3588&gt; {THE} filarguria &lt;5365&gt; {LOVE OF MONEY;}...

It appears the NIV actually kicks the King Jimmy's butt on getting this part right.

[All the time I have now for this rubbish.]

 

The two chief objections I have to the New International Version are (1) its underlying texts used for translation, and (2) its philosophy of translation - dynamic equivalence. Though some dynamic equivalence is used in any translation, my opinion is that the NIV relies too heavily on it.

For NIV resources, much can be found on the official website: www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/.

 

Nope. I'd say a 'renaissance man'.

 

Good post JYD. If I might add one more, 1 Thes. 1:10. BTW, any NIVers been to Calvary? There are many more reasons why I do not use the NIV, but these are good enuff.

 

One more thing about the NIV.

Every translation has strengths and
weaknesses. The greatest strength
of the NIV is its contemporary
English style. It reads beautifully
out loud.

The answer to the question is that there
is nothing wrong with the NIV.

Clay