What's wrong with the NIV?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Terry_Herrington, Apr 12, 2003.

  1. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Over the past months I have read many things about the NIV here at the Baptist Board. Some good, but many not so good. Many people list the NIV as one of the versions that they read, but it is many times followed up with some type of comment about how the NIV is not acceptable for serious study.

    I go to a SBC church that uses the NIV as their primary version. Our Sunday School literature quotes from the NIV and our Pastor preaches from it. We seem to have no problem using it for instruction, and we have not gone off into false doctrine.

    I would like to know what is right or wrong with this translation and why should it, in your opinion, be embraced or shunned.
     
  2. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  4. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    JYD and Pastor Larry,

    I did not post this to argue the merits of the NIV as apposed to the KJV. For the purpose of this thread let's assume that the NIV is a good translation. I just want to know in what ways is the NIV too loose for bible study. Where is the wording, not wrong, but also not as exact as it should be.

    I love the NIV and will, probably, always use it, at least to some degree.

    JYD,

    I know you do not like these MV's, especially the NIV. Please allow those of us who do like this translation to discuss it among ourselves without the re-posting of things we have all seen dozens of times. Thank you. [​IMG]
     
  9. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  10. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    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.]
     
  11. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    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/.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    What's wrong with the NIV? It's in English, and any time you translate a document in Greek into an imperfect receptor language, you will lose and confuse.

    Same could be said about Tyndale, Geneva, AV, NASB, RSV, et al.

    And I prefer the Greek texts underlying the NIV/NASB over the very very very limited texts used in translating the AV. But still use the NKJV for preaching.

    Call me a compromiser.
     
  13. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. I'd say a 'renaissance man'. [​IMG]
     
  14. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Homebound,

    I expressly explained the purpose of this thread. Why don't you honor my request. This is not the place to bring up the same old arguments you have brought up in the past.

    If you do not have something constructive to say, leave! We can continue to argue about the KJVO position elsewhere, in the proper thread.
     
  16. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     

Share This Page

Loading...