NIV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

Godsone -> NIV (8/9/2008 12:41:05 AM)

I heard that there are a couple of things wrong with the NIV bible? Can someone please explain those things to me please?



magiceraserbrush -> RE: NIV (8/9/2008 9:38:09 AM)

This is magiceraserbrush I have read and enjoy every message I receive Godsone the Bible as been tranlated many times though the years and people being people as they are make mistake and we as readers have to deside what is important and what isn't. Your Bible is as good as any one else. We must look to the Lord and ask Him in your prays what is right and what isn't. If this helps let me know we can work it out together.



brothertodd -> RE: NIV (8/9/2008 11:04:22 PM)

The NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation, more commonly known as a thought for thought. A KJV, NASB, is a formal equivalence or word for word. While word for word's attempt to convey a word for word translation, it missses out on many thought processes in which NIV and other dynamic translations attemt to convey.
For every 3-4 words translated from the Hebrew it takes up to 9 words in english. The KJV has had material added to finish a chapter, And the NIV has stuff missing. But it takes away nothing doctrinally. For study I recomend a parallel KJ/NIV bible or read side by side.
Personal reading NIV is a great translation, I personally have used them untill they fall apart.
At the Christian bookstore near you ask for a pamphlet Bible Translations by Ron Rhodes youll find it helpfull, (if still avalable, I hope it is I need a new one)



abu_khomar -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 2:57:13 AM)

Since the NIV stands for Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) I would say there are MANY things wrong with it.



ta_mosquito -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 7:59:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abu_khomar

Since the NIV stands for Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) I would say there are MANY things wrong with it.


No, it stands for the New International Version. I know you're saying this as a joke, but it's a very old, tired one.



phyl2 -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 4:10:45 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: abu_khomar

Since the NIV stands for Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) I would say there are MANY things wrong with it.

No, it stands for the New International Version. I know you're saying this as a joke, but it's a very old, tired one.


I think we need to be careful about making statements like that, whether they are jokes or not. Whether a translation is good or bad, it is still the word of God.

Hundreds of thousands of good Christian people are led, taught, corrected, encouraged, and prepared by the Holy Spirit using the NIV.



brothertodd -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 4:25:53 PM)

The bible is the sword of the spirit, aka word of God. It is an accurate discription it being a sword for it cuts at the world and its culure and traditions at times. And like any swordsman the sword to use up to its beholder. If you chose a word for word over a thought for thought it is your choice, just become familiar with it, so when someone brings teaching in error you become aware of it. Now the Holman Bible co. has come out with a Holman Christian Standard which attempts to bridge the gap between the two. There is another type translation that should not be used for doctrinal conclusions but for more relaxed type reading and that is The Living (not New Living that is one like NIV) and The Message these are paraphrase and a paraphrase has what one would say theatrical license used by the translator, it is easier to read. And stay away from the new World Translation, it is a corrupted translation by the Watchtower Society aka Jehovah Witnesses.



Theophile2 -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 6:36:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Godsone

I heard that there are a couple of things wrong with the NIV bible? Can someone please explain those things to me please?


It would be easier, if you explained what you've heard is wrong with it.[;)]

[sm=icon_smile_fish.gif]



Godsone -> RE: NIV (8/10/2008 11:43:02 PM)

I've just heard that it's not as reliable as other bibles...



phyl2 -> RE: NIV (8/11/2008 12:25:24 AM)

quote:

I've just heard that it's not as reliable as other bibles...


Don't believe everything you hear. Not all of those sites are reliable.

The most prolific sites are the KJVO sites, which are notoriously not reliable, but there are also those who prefer word for word translations who will tell you that the NIV and others are not reliable simply because they are not word for word translations. Other times, it has to do with doctrinal differences.

I prefer to follow the example of the Bereans, who listened eagerly to everything Paul said, but then checked the scriptures to see if what he said was true. I read what some of these sites claim, and then I check it out first to see if the claim was true, and then I look for the reason why the translators chose the translation they chose. I also check to see how the translation choice in question lines up with the rest of scripture.

The NIV is the main translation that I use, and it is because a number of years ago I perceived the Holy Spirit leading me to begin using it, and God actually made it available to me by having someone offer me one at a price I could afford, since I could not afford to buy one from a store. (an aquaintance had decided to get a leather bound and offered me their hardback)

A number of years later, I was confronted by the KJVO issue. I have spent many months and years in prayer and research over the issue, and the Holy Spirit continues to confirm to me that the NIV is indeed a good translation, and one that God guides me to use, although He also guides me to use other translations as well.



Theophile2 -> RE: NIV (8/11/2008 11:45:34 AM)

Godsone -

Before I go too far, might I offer that you download "e-sword" ... you can have all of the translations you want at your fingertips in the easiest to use format I have seen produced to date.

There are many books out that attempt to outline the differences in each of the translations. Some translations (paraphrases) are actually political commentaries making all references to God gender neutral as well as other modifications, some do a very good job of translating the intended meaning of the original language, and some identify as literal translations, which may or may not be more or less true, depending on what you mean by "literal."

So, as mentioned above, KJV and NASB fall in the formal equivalence / literal translation. But as brothertodd mentions, they forget that English often requires the addition of several adjectives to get the meaning right.

Take Mt 1:1 for example ... the NASB, KJV, MKJV, ESV and who knows who else translates γενεσεως (geneseos, G1078) as geneology. But:

The question is how to translate γενέσεως : "birth" or "lineage" - From the LXX, Ge 2:4 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ("These are the generations/ births"; Ge 5:1 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως (the book of the generations/ births); are both associated with H8435, but according to the TWOT (867g), Ge 2:4 is specifically " תּוֹלֵדוֹת (tôlēdôt) descendants, results, proceedings. Always used in the plural and in the construct state or with a pronominal suffix."; whereas per TWOT (867f) Ge 5:1 is specifically "מוֹלֶדֶת (môledet) kindred, relatives. Sometimes wrongly translated as “nativity” or “birth” ", as 867f is also associated with γενέσεως in Ge 31:13 (kindred/birth) and 32:9 (kindred). In Ge 40:20 γενέσεως is associated with H3205 - to beget (Pharaoh's birthday), which per TWOT is 867 to bear/beget and the root of 867f/g. In Ruth 2:11 γενέσεως is again associated with TWOT 867f, translated kindred/birth/native. But in Ecc 7:1 γενέσεως is associated with H3205 (birth) again. Those are the only occurrences in the LXX of γενέσεως. Genesis 5:1 is the only other occurrence in the Bible of this phrase (the book of the "relatives"); based on TWOT 867g, Ge 2:4 should be "these are the 'proceedings' ".

All other γενέσεως associations are with "kindred/relatives" (usually improperly translated birth) or with "yalad" - to beget. Based on TWOT discussion of 867f, γενέσεως is translated here as "kindred".

(TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)

... so other than by inference of the context of the verse, the word itself is improperly translated as "geneology" - which would actually be an entirely different word in the Greek. Yes, geneology is the intended idea in the verse, but that's not the word that is used.

Or take for instance 1 Cor 4:1, where ὑπηρέτας (hupēretas  G5257) is translated as servant (ESV, NASB), minister (KJV), steward (MKJV).

But the word actually means "under oarsmen" ... likely imagery Paul was using in reference to the galleys of the day to provide a picture to his audience of what being a servant of Christ was like, working under His supervision. The richness of this imagery is lost in the translation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyl2
I prefer to follow the example of the Bereans, who listened eagerly to everything Paul said, but then checked the scriptures to see if what he said was true.


... well said. [sm=smile.gif]

Blessings to all.

[sm=icon_smile_fish.gif]



Strider33 -> RE: NIV (8/14/2008 12:32:33 AM)

For the last four years I have been using a parallel Bible English/Spanish.

The English version is NIV. The Spanish Version is Reyna-Valera (1960).

The Bible study I go to has people with NKJV and several other versions. Whenever we get around to comparing differences, RV comes out very close to KJV. The difference between KJV and NIV seems larger than the difference between KJV and Reyna-Valera. I didn't expect this. I expected the difference between English and Spanish to result in more differences in the text than I think I've observed.

I'm not sure, but I think the difference is mostly due to which manuscripts the translators were using. Reyna-Valera was orginally done in Switzerland some time around 1560. That puts it at about the same time and place as the Geneva Bible, although the Wikipedia article on Spanish Bibles gives a different provenance. (Is that the right word?)



RoniPony -> RE: NIV (8/14/2008 8:05:45 AM)

I suppose the debate is a common one nowdays with so many versions available.In our home my wife and I use the NKJV.My Oldest son and my daughter read both that and the NRSV and we even have a NIV version in the house,We compare them often and yes there are some differences,but
nothing major and as someone mentioned..It's all the Sword of the Spirit......word of God.In the end,isn't that what it's really all about? I say read whatever one you understand best.Rather that then get frustrated and not read the Bible at all.......and yes I knew a couple people that did just that.



blueshadow -> RE: NIV (8/17/2008 2:28:20 PM)

I wouldn't call the NIV a dynamic equivalence translation - it's more a median translation. The NLT, however, is a dynamic equivalence translation.

English speakers are blessed to have many, many Bible translations to choose from. Which one to choose is up to the individual - though paraphrases would not be good for primary Bibles, and it is always good to read the translators' notes, as they almost always have alternate translations. The NIV is a worthy translation. So are many others.



bob97 -> RE: NIV (8/17/2008 3:33:23 PM)

Upon close inspection you will find discrepancies in all translations…the KJV is a long ways from being a pure translation but it continues to be the standard. I try to compare them all and then go back to the Young’s translation as a backup.

Bob



steve7150 -> RE: NIV (8/20/2008 8:25:53 AM)

quote:

I heard that there are a couple of things wrong with the NIV bible? Can someone please explain those things to me please?




One error is translating "the flesh" into "sinful nature." They are often the same but not always.



Strider33 -> RE: NIV (8/20/2008 9:34:54 AM)

Consider 2 Chronicles 3:4.

Here's the NIV:

4.The portico at the front of the temple was twenty cubits long across the width of the building and twenty cubits high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold.

Here's the KJV:

4.And the porch that was in the front of the house, the length of it was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and the height was an hundred and twenty: and he overlaid it within with pure gold.


Now the difference between 20 cubits and 120 cubits is not something I would build a major theological thesis around. But if I were building a scale model of Solomon's temple, I would want to choose one of these as correct.



MrFribbles -> RE: NIV (8/22/2008 6:12:36 PM)

Steve,
quote:

One error is translating "the flesh" into "sinful nature." They are often the same but not always.


That's probably the major beef I have with it. Otherwise, it seems like a pretty solid translation. Though personally, I'm an ESV man.

Strider,
quote:

Here's the NIV:

4.The portico at the front of the temple was twenty cubits long across the width of the building and twenty cubits high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold.

Here's the KJV:

4.And the porch that was in the front of the house, the length of it was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and the height was an hundred and twenty: and he overlaid it within with pure gold.


Now the difference between 20 cubits and 120 cubits is not something I would build a major theological thesis around. But if I were building a scale model of Solomon's temple, I would want to choose one of these as correct.


Numbers in Hebrew are a tricky matter. Heh, I could go on and on about the "thousands" of Israelite people who left Egypt, but that's another thread. I would say that's less of an issue with choosing one translation over another, and more of an issue with knowing how to compare translations, and better yet, putting the time and effort into learning how to study (and maybe even read/translate) the original languages.



cog41 -> RE: NIV (8/24/2008 8:24:07 AM)

Personally I'm a NASB and NKJV student.

For personal devotion and group teaching I think the NIV is fine.

It is still His Word.



evry1needsgod -> RE: NIV (8/26/2008 12:30:08 AM)

quote:

English speakers are blessed to have many, many Bible translations to choose from.


I look at it as just the opposite - a curse. They all seem to contradict each other, some more than others. People always fight about which one is better, which one is holier, which one is perfect, which one is of the Devil, which one is a piece of trash, bla bla bla. There are so many translation available to the English speaking people, that any semi intellectual reader could grab a bunch of these Bibles, combine them all in separate areas, and preach just about anything he pleases from the pulpit. I've seen it done. To me, this is not a blessing. This is the Devil playing his mid games on mankind, meanwhile strengthening his forefront of attack found in post-modernism.



phyl2 -> RE: NIV (8/26/2008 1:49:13 AM)

quote:

There are so many translation available to the English speaking people, that any semi intellectual reader could grab a bunch of these Bibles, combine them all in separate areas, and preach just about anything he pleases from the pulpit. I've seen it done.


I've seen plenty of speakers use just one translation and preach anything they pleas from it.

quote:

This is the Devil playing his mid games on mankind, meanwhile strengthening his forefront of attack found in post-modernism.


The devil plays his mind games on mankind whether mankind has only one translation or one hundred available. I've known of plenty of one version only churchs which have been places of rampant false teaching.

But then, this is way off topic. The thread is about whether the NIV is a good translation, and it is.



Strider33 -> RE: NIV (8/26/2008 10:30:22 AM)

Islam has only one authorized version of the Quran. It's written in the original classical Arabic. There are no authorized translations.

That doesn't prevent the Devil from using followers of Islam to further his schemes.



evry1needsgod -> RE: NIV (8/26/2008 5:09:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

Islam has only one authorized version of the Quran. It's written in the original classical Arabic. There are no authorized translations.

That doesn't prevent the Devil from using followers of Islam to further his schemes.


Apples and oranges my friend. Islam is not Christianity, and Islam is blasphemous to God, and is therefor false. Who cares what Bible they have?

My point is this. Have you heard of the Bible entitled "The Message?" I challenge you to look it up, read some, and come back here and tell me we are blessed to have that. It's labeled "The Scriptures translated into modern day contemporary language." [:'(] You mean to tell me that every translation we have is a good one, even though every single one of them contradicts each other is some area or the other, some more severe than the other??? No, it's not a blessing. But, that is just my humble opinion. It has just opened the door widerfor the Devil to belittle Christianity, and he has taken FULL advantage of this golden opportunity.



MrFribbles -> RE: NIV (8/26/2008 6:10:29 PM)

quote:

Have you heard of the Bible entitled "The Message?" I challenge you to look it up, read some, and come back here and tell me we are blessed to have that.


While I certainly agree that The Message is not a good paraphrase (make no mistake, it's not a translation) for the average Christian to use for their Bible study, I think it might have its uses. It could help a person who isn't familiar with Christian culture get what Scripture is trying to say. If someone reads that Christ is the expiation for our sins through His blood, they'll either think we're too intellectual, nutty, or both. But if they read that Christ paid for us by giving Himself fully, it makes a better connection.
So, for as much as I personally dislike The Message, I don't see anything heretical about it.

quote:

You mean to tell me that every translation we have is a good one, even though every single one of them contradicts each other is some area or the other, some more severe than the other???


Can you show me some of these severe contradictions?



phyl2 -> RE: NIV (8/27/2008 12:07:49 AM)

I've known a number of people who have benefitted spiritually by reading The Message. So, I'd say the Holy Spirit has been busy taking full advantage of this oppurtunity.

But, again, this is off topic. This thread is not about The Message, or whether the multitude of translations is a good thing or a bad thing. It's about whether the NIV is a good or a bad translation.

Other than the fact that the NIV translates a certain Greek word as "sinful nature", no one has provided any evidence that it is a bad translation.

I think with any translation, a person who is knowledgeable of the Biblical languages will have a problem with a specific translational choice here or there. But, I have noticed when hearing preachers or reading commentaries, when someone says "_______" is a better translation for a given word/verse, and I check how the NIV translated that word/verse, the NIV usually agrees with the "better translation".

And, when I took a year of Hebrew and Greek, and had to do my own translating, when finished I would check to see how the NIV translated that verse, and it was usually accurate. I can't recall any instances when it wasn't, anyway.

evry1needsgod, if you are going to continue to keep making such claims, I'd say you need to open a new thread where you can point out your "contradictions".



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI