Defending the NIV

[EricH]

All of the versions KJV included are not without issues. The only inerrant copies we had were the originals. The good news is that because of the number of manuscripts available we are 99.9 percent sure that mosrt of the versions we have (NIV, KJV, NASB, Holman) are trustworthy and accurate. The only issues are minor and do not inpact major doctrines. You can feel fine with the NIV

[kross]

This is my fav NKJV, NIV comparison. Notice that where God is seems to be left out in the NIV leaving it open ended for those who want to put God wherever.

Luk 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.

Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one."

NKJV

Luk 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:

" 'Father,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come.

Luk 11:3 Give us each day our daily bread.

Luk 11:4 Forgive us our sins,

for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

And lead us not into temptation.

NIV

For me it is the last half of Romans 8:28;

NIV states "...for those who are CALLED..."

KJV "...for those who are THE CALLED..."

Massive difference in understanding.

[OneLight]

Romans 8:28 (New King James Version)

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

I use this version for my studies.

[Massorite]

Yes that is correct Mike. The original KJV was done in old English which had different word with different meanings but also words that are no longer used. For example the word "retire" was used to speak of going some place instead of going to bed or resting.

I believe that King James got a bunch of the best of the best of Schalors together and they picked through Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and decided which books were spiritualy inspiring and which one were not. Those that they deemed had no real value they left out of the bible and I believe one reason this was done was because it was a in opposition to the Catholic bible which has a few more books in it then the KJV.

Then the KJV was once again revised in 1629.

Not quite Massorite. Below is a part of an article on bible history, with citation and permission to post. It shows that the KJV included the apocrypha and that it was in fact translated in opposition to the Geneva protestant bible, not the catholic bible. The canon itself was decided centuries before the translation of the kjv.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

The Anglican Church

[Massorite]

I'm a NIV fan I was always told that The Niv was translated from older greek text that hadn't been discovered yet in 1611. Added to the fact that its written in modern english and therefor easier to comrehend seems the better choice for me. I know people will say i could read the new king james version but isn't that a translation of a translation.

So what were these older Greek texted that were found and who wrote them?

[Bold Believer]

I was talking to my manager/preacher the other day, and he asked me to read a passage from Genesis about Adam needing a companion. I remember the NIV (which I always use) used the word "helper", and he asked me what translation I was using because his KJV used "help-meet". When I told him that I always use NIV, he told me that the NIV had over 3000 deletions from the KJV and that it was good only as a reference bible. Is there any truth to that or has anyone else ever heard anything similar? Shiloh62

My opinion is that the NIV is way off in its translation, dangerously so. I would agree with your Pastor.

Ok, fair enough, but the problem is, I can't read the KJV and make the sense out of it that was intended 400 years ago. Is there a modern translation that would be more accurate than NIV? I want to go through and re-read the bible again in its entirety, and I was planning on using NIV this time. I've read it through with KJV and the Living translation (I know) ,but want to reread it through again. Maybe NKJV would be good?

NKJV is not bad. Here online, I prefer the Blue Letter Bible. If I need to, I can go straight to a Greek text there to get the original understanding. BLB has multiple versions. Learning some basic Greek/Hebrew is never a bad thing for Bible study.

[being molded]

Those older texts are the Codex Sinaiticus - text found in the trash-bin in the monastry at Mt Sinai, ready to be placed in the furnace. Some scholar was visiting the place & saved the texts. They contain many deletions & later re-insertions by the early scribes. Beimg moulded

[~pearl]

This is my problem with the NIV : Isaiah 14:12...compare to Revelation 22:16. I think somebody really goofed in the translation.

[irishcowboy]

There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise.

Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.

Seems to be a condition to me?

just like salvation....... the only totally unconditional thing is the Love of God for us...... every thing else has conditions to it, including salvation, we have to accept it, receive it..... everything else that is a promise, God has already done His part, it is up to us to do our part, the condition lays on us.... not God.....

mike

[larryt]

Big contradiction between the two.

Heb. 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.(KJV)

Heb. 11:11 By faith Abraham, even though he was past age