Is NIV false doctrine?

[missmuffet]

 

I play around a lot with bible gateway's search tool to find the differences between copies of the bibles. Some things I've found that been bugging me about NIV is the switching or subtraction of words. I'll give some examples.

 

In NIV there are no occurrences of the word "saint", it has all been changed to "holy ones" or "holy people" etc.

 

I was under the understanding that only God was holy. Am I wrong?

 

1 Samuel 2:2

New International Version (NIV)

² “There is no one holy like the Lord;

    there is no one besides you;

    there is no Rock like our God.

 

Okay, so from Samuel 2:2 of NIV we see the statement that only the Lord is holy.

We get the same result from KJV too.

 

1 Samuel 2:2

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

² There is none holy as the Lord:

for there is none beside thee:

neither is there any rock like our God.

 

Then Psalm 89:7 of NIV goes on to contradict this statement.

 

Psalm 89:7

New International Version (NIV)

⁷ In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;

    he is more awesome than all who surround him.

 

So only God is holy yet He is before the holy ones?

 

In the same Psalm, KJV sticks to the use of the word "saint".

 

Psalm 89:7

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

⁷ God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints,

and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.

 

The NIV is implying an equality between God and the followers. This is insanely deceptive.

I honestly feel that what I see qualifies NIV as false doctrine.

 

Can I get some input from you doctrine experts out there?

The NIV has a lot of problems, including the fact it leaves out entire verses and important words.  For instance, when speaking of casting out devils, Jesus said a certain kind comes not out but through prayer and fasting, and the word fasting is left out of the NIV.  It was because of issues like this I started investigating new translations, and wound up KJV only.  It also likes to discredit passages by claiming they don't appear in "the most reliable manuscripts," but they give no explaination as to why some manuscripts are more reliable to them?  The people that put the NIV out also put out the abomination called the TNIV.  It is one of the worst translations out there, but I recommend staying away from all new translations. 

 

That is basically what I have heard.

[The_Patriot21]

actually, butero, thats not entirely true-the leaving out verses and important verse. It is true, the original NIV did, indeed leave out the last part of mark and part of acts, (but put it in the footnotes) because the greek documents they were using didnt have them (its true, some greek documents DIDN'T have those passages, though the passages refered to are in several other texts, and don't add anything that isnt mentioned elsewhere in scripture) but the later versions of the NIV do include all these verse as part of the normal text. Some of the word differences, is just different ways of translating. Unlike a literal translation, the NIV tried to translate the meaning-not necessarily the actual text. So when compared to a literal translation such as the NASB, ya its not going to have some words in it, and it does seem a wee bit watered down. But I wouldnt call it a false translation.

[ayin jade]

 

 

 

saint  (snt)

n.

1.

a. Abbr. St. or S. Christianity A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.

b. A person who has died and gone to heaven.

c. Saint A member of any of various religious groups, especially a Latter-Day Saint.

2. An extremely virtuous person.

tr.v. saint·ed, saint·ing, saints

To name, recognize, or venerate as a saint; canonize.

 

 

 

A biblical definition of saint is not part of the definition of saint you posted above. 

 

can you give some clarity on this?

 

 

 

 

The bible defines a saint as any one who is a believer in Jesus. Not someone who was canonized (defintion 1 above). Not someone who needs to be dead and in heaven (definition 2). Not a latter day saint/ mormon (definition 3). And does not have to be extremely virtuous person (definition 4). Just a believer in Jesus Messiah. 

[Love is alive]

I read the KJV I have never read the NIV translation. Although the scriptures that you wrote for an example, I see nothing wrong with, I cannot comment on the entire version because I do not read it nor do I study with it. So I guess I cannot say wheather it can be classified as a false doctrine. Although it is something to think about I must say, but further study and comparision would be needed on my part before I could render an opinion one way or the other.

[blindwhale]

 

I read the KJV I have never read the NIV translation. Although the scriptures that you wrote for an example, I see nothing wrong with, I cannot comment on the entire version because I do not read it nor do I study with it. So I guess I cannot say wheather it can be classified as a false doctrine. Although it is something to think about I must say, but further study and comparision would be needed on my part before I could render an opinion one way or the other.

When I first got in church, the Pastor would read from the KJV Bible and then compare it to the NIV.  He would sell a Parrallel Bible with both translations side by side.  I always read from the KJV, but would compare the two.  That is how I came to notice the problems with the NIV, and that is what led me to start investigating new translations.  This led me to become KJV only.  That is the only Bible I trust, and can fully recommend.  If you read the KJV Bible already, then there is no reason to look elsewhere.  Others say they can't understand it. 

 

There are really two reasons why I believe people go to new translations.  One is the obvious.  They think they can't understand the KJV Bible.  The other is so they can avoid absolutes.  If you can get people to accept the notion that all the translations have mistakes in them, if you don't like something in one translation, you can find one more to your liking.  You have wiggle room to twist the Bible to make it more palatable for you. 

 

 

I think what you are saying is truthfully awesome.

[JDavis]

A few points...

 

I see no real difference between the two passages you posted, not sure where the problem is.

 

The Textus Receptus was "published" in the early 1500's, not sure how this equates to the early church, but perhaps others have a different view of what the early church is.

The "original" Textus Receptus was filled with errors and was "updated" many times, as has the King James translation.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect translation of the word of God, it is all influenced by human hands and minds.

 

When I first became a Christian I looked at many different translations of the Bible and how they were translated. At the time I choose the NIV because of the system used to translate it. The NIV used over 100 scholars from every conceivable background broken into teams each working on a book of the bible. Their work was then checked by a separate group of editors. They used every literally 1000s of manuscripts and parchments and pieces of the bible to complete their work. While not perfect and not without some bias, it was a very good scholarly translation of the bible. 

 

The KJV was the work of a smaller group of people all from the same background and same theological point of view.  I think it is obvious how this could cause problems.

 

The thing about translating the Bible is that it is not an exercise in theology, one does not need to be religious at all to translate on language from another.

 

 

Much has changed since the 1500’s and included in that is our understanding of linguistics and ancient languages.

 

I am deeply troubled by the TNIV,  but while it was done by the same organization as the NIV, it displays a change in the politics of the organization and in reality does not have any bearing on the NIV itself.   Though I will no longer support those that made the TNIV so when it was time to buy a new bible I went with a different translation, the ESV.

 

I have no issue with the KJV and own one, but it is not my preferred choice.

[Guest]

Is NIV false doctrine?

 

Can I get some input from you doctrine experts out there?

 

 

O

 

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV)

 

K

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (KJV)

 

[Mcgyver]

Well, I'd like to chip in with a couple of things if I may...

 

Firstly, in regard to different translations, I think that we must realize (as has been mentioned earlier) that between different bibles we see different translation methods.

 

We have for example the "Formal Equivalence" philosophy which endeavors to keep a word-for-word translation isofar as is possible with the different syntax, grammar, synonymous word meanings etc.

 

Then we have the "Dynamic Equivalence" approach which attempts to provide a thought-for-thought translation.

 

Neither is perfect, and both borrow from the other...and both have to make certain judgment calls. In Koine Greek, there is no punctuation...certain words have several meanings depending on use...and if one translates strictly word for word it would sould like Yoda talking.

 

This is why I think we are blessed to have many translations...and ultimately it is up to the reader to compare and decide which best conveys the gospel message to them.

 

As far as "Holy" and "Saint"

 

In Greek the word for "holy" is αγιος (hagios) and conjugations thereof. At the very basic level (in speaking of men), Trench in his Synonyms of the Greek New Testament writes: "Its fundamental idea is separation, and, so to speak, consecration and devotion to the service of Deity".

 

We see this in 1 Peter 2:9: But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light...

 

So to call the people of God "holy" in this sense is not a doctrinal error.

 

In another sense, αγιος (hagios) is used to denote the very attributes of God...i.e. God alone is "holy"...and in this sense the word hagios encompasses the breadth and depth of what and who God is. (Obviously, in this sense God is not consecrated and separated to the service of Deity...He IS Deity).

 

1 Peter 1:15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct (αλλα κατα τον καλεσαντα υμας αγιον και αυτοι αγιοι εν παση αναστροφη γενηθητε)

 

This is where the word "saint" comes in...the word "saint" is simply a translation of the word hagios, and I suspect the translators used that word to provide a clear deliniation of the use and context of the word "hagios" to avoid any confusion.

 

Romans 15:25: But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.  (νυνι δε πορευομαι εις ιερουσαλημ διακονων τοις αγιοις)

 

So to remove the word "saint" and substitute a perhaps more "modern" word (for lack of something better) once again does not necessarily introduce a doctrinal error...but was felt to better reflect the meaning of the usage in a certain situation by the translators.

 

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse you too much!

[Widor1]

The NIV was the bible that I began to learn about who Jesus is. When I began to study out the root meanings for different words, I also saw slight differences. After praying, I decided to switch. I go back and forth between the NKJV and ESV. I don't think the NIV is false. It was good for me as a "babe in Christ." 1Co 3:2  I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;

 

KJV

1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 

Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 

 

NIV

1 Jn 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify: 

1 Jn 5:8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

[OneLight]

To put it as simple as I can, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is all inclusive, meaning they took all the old manuscript and put them together to make on transcript. The Critical text took only what was found in all the texts and eliminated what was not found is every manuscript. That is why you have the KJV, which used the Textus Receptus method, and the American Standard used the critical text. Both include foot notes denoting this.