Defending the NIV

[Isaiah 6:8]

First let me point out that this is NOT a salvation issue. I have actual had Authorized only proponents tell me that if you use any other translation you are at risk of not being saved. This is the degree of insanity I have seen on the subject. If some one reads a version other then the KJV and falls in love with Jesus and repents, does this mean they are not going to heaven?

There is way to much straining out a gnat only to swallow a camel here. The only reason I am commenting on this is I do not want people to be confused on there relationship with the Lord due to a subject like this.

I will also go so far as to say that All Bibles no matter what translation are not the word of God.

John 1:1 (New International Version)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (King James Version)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (New King James Version)

The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (Amplified Bible)

John 1

1IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.(A

They all agree. What we call the Bible is simply the poor, imperfect recording of Gods will and words. They are however not The WORD.

A brief history of my Bible and me. I started off with an NIV growing up. As a child and young adult this was easy for me to grasp, and understand the most important basics of Gods word. Later in life I attempted to follow the KJV and I was able to, but with much headaches and trouble figuring out old English terms. I have lately settled into the NKJV I like its ease of reading and its retention of poetic style and flow.

I keep seeing in these posts and others that the NIV leaves out things that the KJV does not. This bugs me, to no end as I have a habit of seeing both sides of any equation or argument. Could it not be argued that since the KJV used newer texts that were copies of older texts, that it perhaps added to the Bible, to as some people accuse the NIV of putting a slant to its meaning? Perhaps that it is in reality that the KJV is the inaccurate one and not the other way around. Maybe I watch way to much CSI, but one thing is this. You form the theory around the facts. You do not twist the facts to fit your theory. Here are the facts I'll let you make your decision. By the way I am not saying that the KJV is inaccurate or not. I have seen one thing though I have seen people seeking HIM decide against it by trying to interpret the old English and give up as the English in the book can be very confusing and God is not the author of confusion.

Fact: All translations, are exactly that. Translations of ancient texts, not the actual texts themselves. If you want to be the most accurate you need to go read those texts in the original language

Fact: These ancient texts are actually copies of ancient texts, as far as I know, there are no original letters left written by Paul. We have no books written by the actual hand of Moses, Isaiah, Or the others. Yes they were copied down word for word intensely and with as much integrity as possible. But copies none the less.

Fact: Humans are not infallible.The sad truth is this. Every copy, and every translation = a human behind it therefore it gets filtered through them no matter how hard they try not to.

Fact: The ancients texts delete and add things. They themselves are different. I have seen in notions things like "This text adds this, this text omits that"

Fact: The KJV is a translation of "newer" ancient texts that are copies of copies of copies. This means by definition the ancient texts that were used were not as accurate as the older ones. Its like a copy of a copy of a key. Each time you copy a door key not from the original one you lose something. Eventually a copy of a copy of a copy of a key will not work anymore.

Fact: Punctuation changes things. Some of the the main differences may simply be in punctuation. Punctuation can change the whole meaning of a paragraph or even a sentence.

Fact: Language changes. Many, many words do not mean the same thing as written as they do now. For instance the word gay. It now means homosexual man. It used to mean happy.

Fact: There are other translations in other languages. Norway has its Norwegian translation, there is a Spanish translation, Gaelic, French, German etc.

Fact: There are people in countries where having any form of the Bible is illegal and as long as they can read it, even one page is food for them in a starving church.

Here is my thoughts as summation. Just because the KJV is an older translation, does not mean it is more accurate. Just because the NIV or the NKJV is a newer translation does not mean it is more, or less accurate. Man is the translator there will be differences. I am not saying at all that we should disregard the KJV as old and unreliable, However I am defending the NIV as most of the arguments against this and other translations ring hollow to me. Like the one stating that since you have to pay for a NIV that its not the word of God. Please, really? I have paid for and seen for sale Authorized Versions. Are we not to pay for the work or material's cost? The Bible does say that the laborer is worthy of his wages. The NIV has a copyright on the book that's very open, but that is paying for the cost of translation etc. The KJV has old words, their meanings are no longer relevant. This changes the meaning of the book to those who do not know the meaning of the words used. Also the omissions or additions are listed in my Bible. So because one translation uses one word from one text, and not the same word from a different text is it any more or less accurate then the text it was translated from?

I am not not anti-KJV I am anti KJV only crowd. This is because I have seen a lack of good fruit. From the differences I have seen if this knocks you off your christian walk then you have other bigger issues at hand. I actually have seen the opposite on this one. I have seen more people who are KJV only people lose sight of what is really important, being the cross and salvation and leading souls to the Lord. Like I said, I had one who said that if you did not read the KJV when you came to know the Lord you are not really saved? Is this profitable? Do you have to learn English if you speak another language and live in another country to be truly saved or have true religion? Of course not but yet this is what has been put forth.

I feel that you should pick the one that you understand best for daily reading. For when you do major study I use many translations to try to understand what the Lord is really trying to say. I also know that when Jesus quoted scripture to Satin in the wilderness he did not say "The King James Said" or "The New International Version Said" he said "It is written" I will say that none of the modern translations are 100% accurate. We will know all the truth in heaven. Now there are obvious translations that have been messed with and tweaked so they do lead people down the wrong paths. Be wise in what translations you do use. Read it, look to see if its a simple different translation from the text or a direct misleading of the truth. For instance the Mormon Bible has been purposely edited to prove there cult. The direct misleading is obvious when you read through it.

-Isaiah-

Edited January 27, 2010 by Isaiah 6:8

[~candice~]

The KJV has been proven to be 97% textually pure if that helps you in your quest? You can search in google to find a lot of these studies.

I find that reading KJV is the most safe. Now that I'm older and I understand God's Words more, I see the error in other translations. I don't now how dangerous it is though. Maybe others will be able to help you with determining that more.

lol brother Isaiah. Your last paragraph is funny. I mean, I know you are being serious but it's funny to me *cough* sorry.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't textual purity usually referring to the accuracy of a copy given the original, not the quality of the translation of a copy from one language to another language? Or are you referring to the TR (textus receptus)? The text translated is common for most of the bible translations we have today.

[Isaiah 6:8]

BTW the Accuracy of said ancient texts is beyond amazing. I am not saying that the Bible itself is inaccurate. I am saying that a few words added and subtracted within the texts are okay as long as they do not change the meaning and doctrine of the Bible.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Again, read my point. The ancient texts themselves are not in perfect agreement, how can the other translations from them be so, even if the translation from that imperfect text is accurate

If your using the logic that since the KJV is the oldest it is the most accurate. Then by that logic the NIV is even more accurate because it is using the oldest available texts. So therefore the KJV is not the most accurate or safe. Go back and read my post line by line again, and yes I was being serious but funny with my last paragraph. Read the facts and then decide what is safe vs what is not.

-Isaiah-

[nikki1]

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

Blessings, shiloh62

I have heard that the NIV had many deletions quite awhile ago, so I stopped using mine and use my KJV now. You can also do a search online and find information about this.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Again, Did the NIV Delete items? Or did the KJV ADD Items?

Look at my post again. The deletions were added in later manuscripts. so the deletions may be truer to the original texts!

[Vince53]

I have read articles "showing" that the NIV waters down the Deity of Christ. But I have also read articles showing places where the NIV makes the Deity of Christ clearer than the King James does.

Since no translation is perfect, you and God are free to work out which one you prefer.

For the record, I prefer the New King James Version, but it does have a few mistakes in it.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I have read articles "showing" that the NIV waters down the Deity of Christ. But I have also read articles showing places where the NIV makes the Deity of Christ clearer than the King James does.

Since no translation is perfect, you and God are free to work out which one you prefer.

For the record, I prefer the New King James Version, but it does have a few mistakes in it.

My point exactly Vince.

[OneLight]

You all should use the Interlinear Bible if you are concerned with translations. There are many online that can be downloaded for free. One is Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, which is the one I use.

[nikki1]

Blessings, shiloh62

I have heard that the NIV had many deletions quite awhile ago, so I stopped using mine and use my KJV now. You can also do a search online and find information about this.

One should be careful what they take from the internet. You can do a search and find "proof" that the moon landing was a hoax.

Why the KJV? because it was the "first"?

because it is old?

Do you know anything about the people and the methods and the sources used in the translation of the KJV, or the NIV for that matter?

Blessings,

You are absolutely right about about what you read on the internet. Including message boards Just look at the controversy in this thread I did my own research, and anything concerning God's Word that has that much controversey attached to it, I think it is wise to stay away from. After I learned about the descrepancies in the NIV, I prayfully sought the Lord's guidance and I went back to the KJV based upon that.. I feel totally comfortable with the KJV. That's good enough for me.