The 2011 NIV

I have read the KJV, NKJV, NASB, OLD NIV and now venturing into the NEW NIV.

They all bring me into more of an understanding of God. Since one word can be translated into sometimes not just one word in English.

It is so important for context and the index helps. My home study I use a NASB with keyword and Greek Hebrew dictionary. Online I use the NEW NIV when I get verses. I will give you an example how it brings me more understanding of scripture each translation.

I do not try to pick the best translation I like that suits my own purposes I would rather believe every word it translates to that fits into the context than pick the one I like and ruin all what God is teaching me through His word.


Zephaniah 3:12
New International Version 2011
But I will leave within you the meek and humble. The remnant of Israel will trust in the name of the LORD.

Zephaniah 3:12

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
12 But I will leave within you
the meek and humble,
who trust in the name of the LORD.

Romans 10:17

New International Version 2011(NIV)
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Romans 10:17

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The web site wasn't a trusted site for my anti-virus. So I didn't go to it sorry.

 

I'm in Mainland,China where I cannot access the site. But I am familar with the stuff that CBMW produces,including its misguided treatment of the 2011 NIV.

BTW,the TNIV and the 2011 NIV read exactly the same for that passage.

From the so-called Calvin Bible: "But I suffer not the woman to teach,nor to assume authority over the man,but to be silent."

Are you going to charge him with being egalitarian? I doubt it.

Paul Wendland of WELS has said with respect to the 2011 NIV rendering and the fuss that CBMW has made of it: "If I would say in a conversation, 'The president assumed office today,' would anyone think, 'He means the president is assuming office on his own initiative'? I have a hard time believing it."

 

That's not a case of dumbing-down a translation! It's called a Pocket Reference Bible for a reason you know.

If you want a version that uses awkward phraseology that would be just the ticket.

 

It would be a rare thing for any fundamentalist conservative to use the NIV as their source of study or what they teach from. It has been my experience it is mainly the book of the liberal and/or those who follow the post modern age way to think.
I say that and someone is going to say but I am a conservative and use the NIV. However the truth is most likely they just claim to be conservative as they judge themselves by themselves instead of by what the word of God says. The NIV is the book of the moderate and the liberal for the most part who tend to shy from absolutes.

 

I don't know about most congregations --but my home church is conservative. They (we) wouldn't apply the word Fundamental --they are Reformed Baptists. But my pastor preaches from the 84 NIV and his messages are quite biblical and orthodox by anyone's standard.

You are making foolhardy assumptions that should be revoked after a time of reflective contemplation. --"Just claiming they are conservative"? Hardly. you apparently think the NIV waters-down cardinal doctrines of the Faith once delivered. Go ahead and air specific gripes.

I will not allow you or anyone else to simply assert such reckless things with impunity. You are not being very biblically-minded to act as you have been.

 

I stand on what I said and you are doing exactly what I said by examining yourself by yourself. Name me some conservative mainline bible teachers who use the NIV. It is just not the book of conservatives. Just one example. Most every person who uses the NIV holds to long periods of time for creation instead of what the bible teaches, 6 days. There are many other examples but that is just one that moderates and liberals hold.

 

This is a terrible and unnecessarily accusatory thread that states issues as facts that are just hyperbole.

 

Well then name me some well known fundamental conservative bible teachers that use the NIV.

 

I explained before about the use of the word Fundamental.

Some conservative preachers off the top of my head who use the NIV are Alistair Begg,Mark Dever and D.A.Carson. If you think the latter is only an author/theologian --you are mistaken. He may not be a pastor --but he preaches very well.

 

As I said there are a few, but most conservatives stay away from the NIV, and there are questions about those names you gave in some of their beliefs, as it is a liberal rendering and I would point anyone to the creation account to show it.
So again it is my experience that most people who use the NIV are moderate or liberal and the later is the prevalent.

 

At this point it is foolish to engage with you given that your moniker of "fundamental" is so subjective you can simply dismiss anyone who we put up there as a meeting your qualifications. Clearly nothing we can say will rebut your point in your brain so I'm not going to try.

I'd point out that Mark Dever is about as a "fundamental conservative" as you're gonna get. But since you've already qualified away anything we could say its a vain game to pursue satisfying your shifting standard.

 

I would like to point out here that you are taking your experience and making it a universal truth. Perhaps, as you say, in your experience moderates and liberals use the NIV. But, your experience is not universal and it is not infallible.

To make the claim that you are making is simply to engage in ego-myopic nonsense.

Rippon's post included for context:

This is outright slander. You are saying "there are questions about the beliefs of Begg, Dever, and Carson."

Now, I know Mark Dever personally. We are acquaintances. I call him Mark and he calls me [my first name]. I have been in his home and eaten at his table. My parents were members of his church for 6 years.

There is nothing in Mark's theology is can be remotely construed as "moderate" or "liberal." Mark is as solid in theology as one can be.

Mark uses the NIV because he claims it is the best translation. I disagree with him. But, because he chooses to use the NIV does not make him a liberal. This is complete, total, and utter nonsense.

I know there are people who use the NASB or the ESV or the KJV or the NKJV or the HCSB who have really messed up theology. It isn't the fault of their preferred translation. One of my favorite professors at Southern Seminary used the NIV (he was a Don Carson clone). His theology is as solid as possible.

Your comments are wrong-headed.

The Archangel

 

No. The onus is on you, having already made your charges and slandered many well-known conservative theologians. Prove to us that you are correct.

Again, your experience is not universal and therefore cannot be applied to all persons using the NIV as their preferred translation.

The Archangel

 

I all ready have.

 

No, you haven't. All you've done is besmirch the names of Begg, Dever, and Carson without offering any hint as to the holes in their theology. What is more, you have not named anyone whom you consider liberal who uses the NIV.

So, again. The onus is on you. Now, if you'd like to say that you've misspoken, I'm sure everyone here will be forgiving--since we've all misspoken at times. However, there is no reason to try to justify yourself in our eyes when your position is indefensible and unjustifiable.

The Archangel

PS. I am a well-known opponent of the NIV. I have no great love for that particular translation.