Do any other "modern-version-ers" besides me dislike the NIV?

Ransom,

That's exactly what I have found as well, and is why I still use it.

When I study the Greek or Hebrew, I find msyelf agreeing with the NIV rendering almost always. Yes, there are places I would translate differently, but I found that true of the NASU too.

 

I actually just purchased a KJV/NIV parallel as I teach SS to jr. high kids(at a kjv preferred church) and whenever I read passages from the KJV they just weren't getting it, now I can re-read the passage in the NIV and many of them understand the passage when read. Now I'm finding myself reading it for my personal devotions and I really like it. Until somebody shows me a glaring doctrinal problem with it, I think I'll continue. I have preferred the NKJV for my personal and family devotional time, but now I may be switching as my kids seem to get more out of it when I read from it also.

Anyway, I grew up pretty much KJVO hearing that the NIV "lessens the blood" and "denies the deity of Christ". Thankful that I actually researched those accusations to find they are not true. I think all Children should be given the NIV when they first get saved. Why give them something they don't understand? I hate seeing a well-intentioned adult in my church handing that KJV gift Bible to that new 7 yr old kid that came in on the bus route and just got saved, who can barely read. I've done the experiment several times with my Jr. High boys. I read a passage of Scripture from the KJV to them then ask all who understood the point of the passage to please raise their hand. Half the boys in my SS class attend a Christian school and the 2 times I did this no one raised their hands. Then I picked up one of the bus kids "Teen study Bible using the NIV translation" and re-read the passage. Both times about half the boys raised their hands that they understood.

I now like the NIV and think its a good translation. I would still probably consider the KJV/Nasb/NKJV as better overall for the mature Christian who wants a literal translation.

just my opinion..

Todd

 

I have never seen this. What is different about this translation?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The NIV is NOT a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts, but simply a paraphrase! And that a very bad one too!

In an age when people are spending very little time doing in-depth study of the Bible, we should not have so-called "versions" of the Bible that are unreliable when it comes to giving what the original text has. This also goes for the likes of the ESV, NRSV, RSV, NEB, NASB, INIV, etc. The older versions, like the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, Youngs, Webster's, etc are soild for serious Bible study, something all Christains should be interested in doing! You simply cannot use any of these "modern versions" for theological purposes, as they are the product of inferior Hebrew and Greek texts!

 

Hmmm. And you know that that one greek text is inferior to another by . . . .

 

I think that the NIV is an excellent "dynamic" translation. It was handled by a lot of committees who checked and rechecked translation and other committees that made certain that the English rendering was consistent throughout the Bible. For a dynamic translation it is probably the best available and, in my opinion.

I think it is excellent for young Christians who want to read the Bible and will not be doing "deep" study until later. I enjoy reading it myself, when I feel like reading an entire book in one setting without having to concentrate as hard as with the NASB and certainly not the KJV.

I think it is also a great translation for children. I would rather them read the NIV than Good News for Modern Man which is about the same reading level.

For deep study; however, I like the NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, etc. But, even then, reading a verse in the NIV can help understanding.

The TNIV, on the other hand, has and will taint the NIV. I have a problem purchasing a Bible from a publisher who will purposely skew a translation. The publisher promised not to publish it in the United States and backed out of their promise. So, I will use NIV's that are already sold or used, but I will NOT buy a new one or pay a royalty for one (which is overpriced, IMHO) for software or other reasons.

I am not so sure I agree with Dr. Bob on the best Greek sources, but then, like him, that is MY opinion.

I can say one thing, the NIV has great footnotes concerning the verses and includes questionable verses (such as the ending of Mark); and then footnotes that many manuscripts do not include it. (or something to tht effect).

This is a very honest method of translation, IMHO.

This is the reason that it is sad that the KJV1611 margin notes are not included in new versions. But, they are available in the 1611 reproduction.

 

Hello Dr Bob, You accuse me of untruth, because I attack the NIV for not being a translation! Lets put it this way, it it were one, then it is classified as being unfaithful to the Greek text!

Let me ask you (and the others who regard the NIV as being worthy of being even read) to take a look at the NIV at 1 Corinthians 7:1

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry"

Can you show me just ONE Greek manuscript, ancient version, quotation from a Church father, that supports this wilful corruption of the Word of God? Let me also tell you here, that the Greek text supports what the KJV/NKJV reads here! There is NOTHING in the Greek about whether "it is good for a man not to marry"! It does speak of "sexual relations" outside the bond of marriage. Not the same, is it?

Then, on what authority does that NIV remove the particle "kai", at the beginning of John 1:14?, "and the Word became flesh..."? When I wrote to Mr Kenneth Baker in the 1990's, and enquired of this change and others, do you know what he said? It was done for English stylistic reasons! By what authority I ask that anyone add or remove any Word from the Holy Bible? How dare does a so-called "version", line the NIV tamper with the Holy Word of God, taking it upon themselves to change, omit things as they please, and then expect us to call their work a Bible translation??? Yes, how dare they, or anyone else? Do we not read of the warning given at the end of the Book of Revelation about adding to a taking away from God's Word? Or, does this not apply to today? Let us make no mistake here, I am NOT talking about any old book, but the infallible Word of Almighty God, which I am sure you agree that the Holy Bible is! So, please don't try to tell me off for something that I believe to be true!

 

icthus, mistakes in translation does not mean it is no longer a translation and not the word of God. All translations have the sort of problems you describe.

 

Natters wrote: "All translations have the sort of problems you describe"

ALL translations? you cannot be serious!!!!

 

Serious. Not in those specific verses, but no English translations are word-perfect from the Greek/Hebrew, and occasionally add/drop an "and" for the sake of style, or use dynamic equivalence.

 

You don't happen to believe in the King James Version Only myth do you? (If you are KJV preferred, that's fine.)

 

icthus,

Your statements are fallacious and idiotic. The NIV is very faithful to the Greek and Hebrew text.

I will wager that you don't know Greek or Hebrew because the KJV is the one and only truly preserved translation in English. Am I right?

 

I don't completely agree with icthus, but he has a GREAT point about being the NIV unfaithful to the Greek. Here is the NIV on Ephesians 2:3

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

Now, here is that same verse in the KJV (I use KJV for the soul purpose of uniformity in that everyone here trusts it more than some of the other translations)

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Let's do a word study shall we?

Notice the bold words in those verses. "objects" in the NIV and "children" in the KJV. The word used there in the Greek is the word "τέκνον" (teknon). This word literally means, "child (as produced): - child, daughter, son."

What justification does the NIV have in doing that? There is not even a translation note there. They just changed the word from "children" (as the Greek CLEARLY states) to "objects" (which is COMPLETELY unrelated).

 

All translations miss it in one place or another... even the KJV, "God forbid".

 

So you're saying the NIV translators did not tie themselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that they had done?

 

Oh they had a uniformity alright. And they were uniformally wrong in my instance. BLATANTLY wrong. Some discrepencies can be explained away by the issue of "dynamic equivalence" but getting a word completely wrong and not making a note as to why they did it doesn't seem like a very honest way of doing things.

By rendering "children" as "objects", it doesn't put a lot of value on children. AND it removes human responsibility for sin thereby making God unjust because His wrath is resting on an object rather than a person. Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, the NIV's rendering is not a valid rendering.

 

Please check out this link

http://207.44.232.113/~bible/engbib/versions.htm

 

I agree that "objects" isn't the best translation. I also agree the NIV has occassional translation imperfections. But in my opinion there are not nearly enough to invalidate it as a translation or of the title "the word of God".

Specifically about "objects" in this verse, if I were to say that my child was the object of my affection, it doesn't take away from his value as a person. And the use of the word in the NIV does not remove human responsibility for sin (especially when reading the whole verse!) - that may be someone's interpretation when reading the verse, but a wrong interpretation doesn't necessarily mean the verse itself is wrong.

I'm not interested in defending every single translation choice in the NIV, but I do think the issue in the specific verses mentioned so far in this thread are not as serious as some make them out to be.