Merits of the NIV

I love the NIV. It is accurate and easy to understand. We waste so much time in our church, reading the KJV and then having the pastor or teacher explain at length that what it really meant was what I just read in the NIV.

 

since it's the "merits" we're talking about, i'd avoid the cons and say that the NIV is widely accepted in most churches today and considered un-offensive.

[ April 20, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

The NIV is a marginal translation of a poor underlying text.

The use of dynamic equivalence when not necessary for understanding tends, in my opinion, to deminish the authority of scripture and blur the doctrine of verbal inspiration.

The underlying Greek textform is demonstrably inferior to the Byzantine textform, and introduces some errors of fact into the readings of the NIV deminishing the authority of the NIV in the areas of inerrancy and infallibility.

Of the major English versions based on the same underlying text I would rate it dead last. The ASV, NASB, ESB, NRSV, etc. are all superior to the NIV.

 

I agree with Mark. Most of our older members were brought up with the KJV and I respect our pastor using it exclusivly from the pulpit. However he is the one who recomended the NIV to me. I do use other translations for comparision, but I use the NIV Study Bible for my personal use, and discernment does not stop with the scriptures, you must also use it with the study notes. But all in all, keeping in mind it is a dynamic equiv. translation, it is what I use the most. If you use the search engine in this forum I believe you will find many interesting (and deeply held opinions) , concerning the NIV.

 

The NIV is a very good translation. It uses a dynamic equivalency method a bit more than does the KJV and a lot more than the NASB. Nevertheless, for reading it is probably teh best. The structure of paragraphing is most easily followed and helps to keep from atomizing the text. There are some translations that I would disagree with but there are those in every major version. On the whole, it is probably the best version for reading, followed by the NASB, NKJV, and KJV. For study it is probably the second best with NASB being first, the NKJV third and the KJV fourth. I have not studied the ESV much though I have heard good things about it. All in all, if someone asks me for a recommendation, I generally say the NIV or NASB.

INterestingly enough, a lady who has been coming to my church in the last 6 months after 57 years as a Catholic got a modern translation and said she felt guilty because it was so easy to understand. I told her she shouldn't feel guilty ... this is the way God intended it to be.

 

Pastor Larry wrote:

You need to fix that problem friend!!!!

The NIV is okay. The best thing going for it is that it utilizes the superior mss. It is not as literal as it should be, but it is certainly better than a number of the mvs out there, such as the NRSV, NLT, just to name a couple. I would recommend it for devotional reading, but not necessarily as a primary study version.

[ April 20, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Agreed.

I agree more and more with this every day. Especially the fact that the NIV helps to keep the context in tact.

Brother Tom, I have been comparing the ESV mostly to the NIV and some to the NASB-UE in all of my studies. It just seems as though the NIV is superior in its conveying the meaning. And when in question the NASB seems to be better than the ESV.

I was able to ask James White at a conference of his brief thoughts on the ESV. He had mentioned that he had not had a lot of time looking at it, but where he did, thought they did pretty well just differences in the grammer. He wondered why there was a real need for this translation, as he had high regard for the NASB-UE. Of course none of these comments can be documented. Just what he had told me. Purhaps when he has a chance to really look at it he may think the ESV best.

In my opinion the NIV is far better than the KJV. And of course the BEST version is the READ version.

 

I know James and I know he loves the NASB. I really like the NASB and used it before the ESV came out. But there are places where the NASB trips itself up and is unnessecarily wooden. The ESV is not so. And while the NIV is a good translation, it goes too far in places at trying to get across the meaning. Sometimes in its desire to be clear, it is unclear by using wording not necessary to a particular passage or verse.

 

I use the NIV for devotional reading because it is easy to read and easy to understand. Wehn I prepare sermons or lessons I use something more literal, but read several translations for comparison.

 

I personally don't care for the N.I.V. or any other translations. I stick to the KJV as God's word without error. for a number of reasons. At the top of my reasons for disliking the N.I.V is that it has been revised six times, has 24,338 changes ans 6,966 new omissions and that is just between 1994 and 1995. you will find not all editions of the N.I.V are the same.

Prov. 24:21 Meddle not with them that are given to change.

If you compare the NIV with the KJV you will find:

N.I.V omits Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4 Acts 8:37, 15:34,24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7

what is interesting about 1 John 5:7 they splice v.6 and 8 to make it look look like 7 is there. very sneeky.

The N.I.V does not like the Blood of Christ nor does it like the Name of our Lord and Savior.

Mark 10:24
N.I.V "Children how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of GOd!"

KJV children how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter into the kingdom of God

John 3:36 N.I.V. say "obey" KJV "believeth"

col. 1:14

N.I.V "In whom we have redemption"
KJV "in whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD

Acts 22:16
NIV "calling on his name"
KJV "Calling on the name OF THE LORD"

1 John 5:13
NIV is omited
KJV "that we may believe on the name of the son
of God"

Eph 3:14
NIV "I bow my knees before the father"
KJV " I bow my knees unto the Father OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

Eph 3:9
NIV "God who created all things"
KJV "GOD, who by all things BY JESUS CHRIST"

Col 1:2
NIV "The father"
KJV "Our father AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST"

Gal 4:7
NIV "an heir of GOd"
KJV "an heir of God THROUGH CHRIST"

1 John 4:3
NIV "every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God"
KJV "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God"

 

I don't care for the N.I.V. because it is not easy to read, it to me is confussing.. a lesbian sits on the board that publishes the book and also the NIV destroys the name of God and gender nutralises him so you don't know who is being talked about. the verse omissions alone and the individual word changes were enough to convince me that something was wrong.

If the KJV is so hard to understand why is it that Children can read it, understand it, as well as memorize chapters out of it? ( I know dozens of children who can)

what was it that the Devil said to eve? "ye Hath God said?"

 

These are the same tired old bromides that have been proven false many times over. Do a little research on this.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. It was noted. however I have done the research and have extensive material on Bible history as well as Manuscript evidence. not to mention I do have many copies of many different Bibles;That i have compared to each other as well as to the KJV.

If you would like to read a Bible that omits the Blood of Jesus as well as takes away from his name, that is your buisness. I will stick to the infallable, Word of God. the word that he said he would preserve. (KJV) Psalms 12:6

Do you have a Holy Bible? perhaps you should check:

2 Peter 1:21
NIV men... you mean regular men or KJV "HOLY men"

Matt 25:31
NIV angels.. which ones? angels that left their first estate or KJV "HOLY angels"

1 Thess 5:27
NIV brethren.. what brethren your kin? or KJV "HOLY brethren"

Rev 22:6
NIV prophets.. are they false prophets or KJV "HOLY prophets"

Rev 18:20
NIV apostles and prophets KJV "HOLY apostles and prophets"

which spirit? there are many spirits(unclean) but only one Holy Ghost.

John 7:39
NIV spirit KJV "HOLY GHOST"

1 Cor 2:13
NIV spirit KJV "HOLY GHOST"

Matt. 12:31, Acts 6:3, Acts 8:18 all say "spirit" in the NIV..KJV says "HOLY GHOST"

just some things to think about.

 

you do have a point i will agree..however. how is it that a person is saved? through the Blood of Jesus Christ. the N.I.V takes "through the Blood" out of their book as well as may other verses. that, you can not deny. They also Change the Name of the Lord.

So the N.I.V. uses the name Jesus in stead of him?? thank you for that information..now I know, the NIV, not only changes words, subtracts verses, but also adds words as well.

The N.I.V attacks the trinity as well as Jesus's blood as well as many other things. does the KJV? No. why would a true Believer in Christ want a book that takes away the very thing that is most important to salvation?

I didn't list those verses for scare tatics. only so people could look for themselves and make a determination.

You would do well to listen to Dr.Ruckman and Gail Riplinger..both of them have far more expertise in this area than you or I or anyone else that would be on this board or in charge of it. Perhaps you don't like them because they step on your toes?

 

I just read some of the verses you posted..and I noticed something. For example, 1 John 3:16..remeber I said that the NIV attacks the trinity? and you pointed out that the KJV uses "he" while the NIV uses "Jesus"?

The KJV reads "Hereby preceive we the love of God, because "HE" laid down his life for us.."

The NIV reads "This is how we know what love is: JESUS CHRIST laid down his life for our lives"

Now the NIV, given, sounds oh so spiritual BUT aren't Jesus and God the same? The NIV deprives the reader of that knowledge in this particular verse. where the KJV tells you that the "HE" is in fact GOD yet we know that is was Jesus on the cross. So giving the reader the truth about God and Jesus being one in the same.

I got your point but do you see mine?

So now wouldn't you agree that "He" in place of the Name Jesus is after all a significant thing?

Thank you again for those verses they just further helped what I was saying about the NIV.

 

2 things:

1. we're talking about the MERITS of the NIV, not the NIV. so the post *against* the NIV was irrelevant.

2. why won't Ruckmanites exercise FAITH in the NIV in such verses rather than try to explain away the clear textual and translational superiority of the NIV in those verses? one doesn't need to be NIV-only to appreciate its strengths n power, it being the Word of the King.