Is the New International Version a good translation of the Bible?

[Deborah_]

The NIV doesn't hide or deny the deity of Christ. 

"No-one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (John 1:18 NIV)

"We wait for the blessed hope - the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13 NIV)

Yet the KJV has no clear reference to Jesus' deity in these verses. Shouldn't that concern you?

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

4 hours ago, Behold said:

No, like this....

 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

 

Notice  that this verse has the word GOD in it.

The NIV does not. As it takes GOD out of the verse.

Lee_, The NIV does NOT take the word God out of the verse, the NIV translators were translating from Greek manuscripts. There is considerable disagreement about which manuscripts are more trustworthy. In General, Bibles that  are missing "God" in 1 Tim 3:16 are working from older Greek manuscripts on the reasonable assumption that the older manuscripts are closer in time to the original writings, and therefore are less likely to have suffered any degradation that comes from copies of copies of copies over the centuries.

While it is not fair to say that the NIV removed the word "God" from that verse, it is fair to say that in the NIV, the word "God" is not in the verse. Whether in belongs there or not, is a matter of faith one places in men, not in God. Do we trust the men who had "God" in the verse, or the men who had  "Who" in the verse. Greek manuscripts go both ways, and man has had an effect on both types of manuscripts.

God inspired the writings of the authors of the various books of the Bible, in their original creation. That does not mean that they have been preserved perfectly in our translations.

People often divide over translations based on Textus Receptus (latin for received text). That sounds rather important, it sounds like one text is received, while the other is rejected. The truth is, the the term textus receptus, came from a publisher printing these Greek manuscripts, claiming essentially: "finally, here is a manuscript for us all" (who read Koine Greek and a time when most Bibles were in Latin, even though the New Testament was written in Greek). By the way, there were (are) several "textus recepti", because revisions kept being made to correct previous errors.

Similar verbiage was attached to the King James Bible, you have probably heard it referred to as the Authorized Version. The question should be asked, authorized by who, and for what? It is not authorized by God, God certainly was not leaving the church without a Bible for 1600 years!

King Henry the 8th, had sought a divorce. The pope denied his request. This led to the formation of the Church of England, where the king of England, was the head of the the church. In a manner then, the Church of England, was added to the ranks of other protestants. However, there was also a group of protestants (the Puritans) who were not fond of the notion that a king was automatically the head of a church. Among them, the most popular Bible version to be available in English was the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was arguably the first "study Bible, having marginal notes of explanation about the text. Some of these notes, could be seen as critical of King of England's claim as the head of the Church. In the time of King James, things were a bit interesting. One the one hand, James felt he needed to be somewhat Catholic friendly, one the other hand he did not need the political headaches of competing Bible versions. By the way, the King James Bible, was not the first authorized version anyway, but James commisioned to have a Bible written, to be the official Bible of the Church of England. Well, to be more accurate, it was not his idea, but it was an idea he approved of. The King James Bible, was a good Bible in it's time (1611), being a more or less literal translation of the underlying texts it was based upon, but it was not without shortcomings, in other words it has no legitimate claim (nor did it make one) to being the only good or accurate translation, though many modern day supporters of it seem to think it is. Oddly though, most who read the King James Version, do not read the 1611 version.

The KJV was revised in 1629. It was revised again in 1638. Some of these revisions were due to simple misprints and some were done to correct errors in translation. To be fair, they were making efforts to make the Bible more literal. As Bibles were printed, errors in printing kept collecting, and it was enough of a problem that something really needed to be done. Another revision was made in 1760, only to have yet another revision in 1769. As you probably know, there is also a King James II Bible, and a New King James Bible. These are basically attempts to keep the same meaning as the King James, but in more modern English, not a bad goal. One only needs to look at the 1611 version, so see why updates of language, are a good idea. For example, this is how Genesis 1 in the 1611 version reads:

1 In the beginning God created the HEAUEN, and the Earth. 2 And the earth was without FORME, and VOYD, and DARKNESSE was VPON the face of the DEEPE: and the Spirit of God MOOUED VPON the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God DIUIDED the light from the DARKNESSE. 5 And God called the light, Day, and the DARKNESSE he called Night: and the EUENING and the morning were the first day.

I made some words in UPPER CASE letters, so you can see the spelling variants. Also, in the 1611 version, Spirit is not capitalized. There is no reason that it needs to be, but that is modern custom. In 1611, this Bible was not called the King James Bible, it's title was:

THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment.

Another reason for more modern language, is that words change meaning, consider Song 5:4:

My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

I know this is way more information that you asked for Lee, and I apologize for that. However, it is not atypical for me to be somewhat thorough (wordy) when I can, in order to provide information that might be helpful to any who might actually read what I write. To that point, those who are interesting in understanding more about the textus receptus aspect, Got Questions has a decent article on it at:

 https://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

I am going to cut this short (LOL) and get back to your question to the degree that I can stay focused.

First, I want to point out, that between those text family varients, there is 98 to 99% agreement. In those differences, no doctrines are lost or weakened. Well there is the issue of the long ending of Mark, should it be there, or was it added in later? Opinions vary.

Part of that says:

15And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Personally, I kind of doubt that Mark said that believers can drink any deadly poison, and it will not hurt them. I have my view of how that got in there, but that is outside of what we are talking about. 

The NIV still maintains the deity of Christ, Jesus (the Word) as creator, the triune nature of God, the virgin birth, Jesus sinless life, in substitutionary death on our behalf, His bodily Resurrection, His ascension to Heaven, His future visible return and all other essential doctrines. It is not my favorite version, because to a large degree it is attempting to restate what the Bible means, and as I recall, it is aimed at a 7th grade reading level. I can read at a higher level than that, and I do not think I need someone else telling me what they think the Bible means, instead of what is says. Never-the-less, I have read the NIV a few times (though an earlier version than the current one) and I have no problem that comes to mind that would cause be to avoid it. I would not hesitate to let my kids use it, if they were in the 7th grade.

Personally, if I have only one Bible to read, and it did not have notes, and I did not have access to commentaries, I would use the NASB. The Bible I most recommend though, for those who can afford it, is the ESV study bible. It has a near literal text, yet it is still pretty easy to read. The notes in it are fabulous. Though I am not as much a fan of the NIV (as I have said), the Zondervan NIV Study Bible is a good Bible too, because is also has great notes. If one reads that Bible and it's notes, the notes will help a lot to overcome any NIV weaknesses,, but as I said I recommend the ESV Study Bible, for people who are serious about learning that Bible and what is about, along with other supporting information (like history, theology, archaeology, etc.). I have two of them, so I can always find one, LOL.

Here below, is basic comparison of some Bible translations and what sort of translation they are:

Also along this line, but very much more detailed, Rose Publishing makes a great little, laminated, folded pamphlet comparing versions, very high quality. at:

https://www.hendricksonrose.com/bible-translations-comparison-pamphlet/9781596361331/pd/361336?event=ESRCG

That is my two cents on the matter.

 

[David1701]

On 4/28/2020 at 11:28 AM, Lee_ said:

Is the New International Version a good translation of the Bible?

Not very.  It's quite loose and includes a large number of interpretive readings that go beyond the bounds of translation.  This is one of the dangers of so-called "dynamic equivalence" translations, which take phrases or sentences then attempt to re-word them, with what they consider to be the the same meaning, in flowing English.  There is a greatly increased danger that any bias that the translators might have will be introduced, with this method.

The technique called "formal equivalence" produces much better translations.  They are closer to being literal and only use dynamic equivalence when a literal reading would not make sense, or would be excessively awkward, in English.  They usually put words added by the translators in italics.

Examples of well-known formal equivalence translations include the KJV, NKJV and ESV.  Of these, I would recommend the NKJV.

Edited May 20, 2020 by David1701
additional sentence

[JohnD]

On 4/28/2020 at 5:28 AM, Lee_ said:

Is the New International Version a good translation of the Bible?

One I used extensively in my early years of study. All translations have difficulties.

The older ones we know about (KJV for some 400 years). But it isn't an easy read for lots of folks. Stick to the one you will actually read.

The thing is to start reading studying any translation with the guidance and interpretation of the

Holy Spirit who wrote the autographs (original texts) through the prophets. He brought forth his Word

even in the Septuagint.

Edited May 28, 2020 by JohnD

[Desopixi Seilynam]

My general test for Bible versions is this;

Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus; which walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

 

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are they that keep His commands, that they may have right to the tree of life... 

 

Versions that don't have the above two verses translated that way, in my opinion, are in question.

The above translation of Romans 8:1 is backed up by verse 2 and everything else Paul says in Romans 8 and Galatians 5:14-24.

Revelation 22:14 is not talking about all the commands of the Bible, but rather the teachings of Christ, this is clear from verses 12,13 and 16.

And is backed up by 1 John 2:3-4 and 2 John 1:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:3-14, 2 Corinthians 5:15, 1 Corinthians 16:22 + John 14:21.

[Prycejosh1987]

On 4/28/2020 at 11:28 AM, Lee_ said:

Is the New International Version a good translation of the Bible?

Ive read it, i think it is good.