NIV Translation

[Philip]

hmmm well, that deos make one think doesn't it? never quite thought about it that way! i just alwasy thought the KJV came about before the NIV?

The KJV is older than the NIV. However, the NIV is translated from older manuscripts than the KJV.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Bible yet found, its date is around 400 AD. Found in the Orthodox Monastery of St Catherine's on Sinai. St Catherine's has been there before that date, so it is a living Orthodox community. It is what is known as an Alexandrian text type. The Bodmer Papyri which dates to 200 AD is also Alexandrian.
Philip is correct most translations following the numbering of the KJV. And most will give a textual note when the verse is omitted, giving the verse and the reasons why it is not in the text.
Jeff the Finn

 

[jwsiii]

The KJV is older than the NIV. However, the NIV is translated from older manuscripts than the KJV.

Do you mean that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the NIV is based on the Majority Text?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Do you mean that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the NIV is based on the Majority Text?

The KJV was based on Erasmus's 3rd edition of the Greek Text, and the text type is Byzantine. The so called Majority text is the Byzantine text which stands to reason that when Byzantium fell to the Turks, the Greeks fled west bringing their Bibles with them. Actually the NIV used an eclectic text meaning they chose what they felt was the most accuate of the Greek texts, which included the Alexandrian text type, which most scholars feel is closer to the original than the Byzantine Text. Most of the so called majority texts date from later than the 9th CT where the Alexandrian goes back to at least 200 AD.
Jeff the Finn

 

[jayswife29]

In the NIV at the end of Mark and in John 7, there are passages that say that some of the verses in those chapters(in the niv) that these verses were not in the most early and reliable manuscripts. What the heck does that mean?

 

[Philip]

In the NIV at the end of Mark and in John 7, there are passages that say that some of the verses in those chapters(in the niv) that these verses were not in the most early and reliable manuscripts. What the heck does that mean?

It means what it says. In the earliest known manuscripts, these verses are missing. It suggests that the verses were added later.

 

[jayswife29]

Are the missing verses actually part of the Bible, or are they altered by people (added) without Gods authority or inspiration? Just curious. Thanks

 

[Reader Nilus]

What happened in the case of Mark, scribes felt the ending was missing so added one. In John 7 some of the Greek witnesses that appears in Luke, most assuredly the woman caught in adultery is scripture, just where it goes is the question. All of it scribal error of one sort or the other, Metzger's book The Text of the New Testament describes the kind of scribal errors, that show up.
Jeff the Finn

 

[jayswife29]

Thanks.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I've heard that there are some problems with the NIV translation. I've heard it called the Nearly Inspired Version. The NIV version is the one I like to memorize from when I memorize. Does anyone know of some problems in the translation that I should look out for?

No translation is perfect.
None are 'inspired'
There are many good translations of the texts, but they are all mere translations. Dont let anyone pull that inspired KJV on you.
If anyone does, remeind them that the KJV has a bat on a list of ''fowls''.
(as well as the many other versions out there)
I have read that there are some Hebrew phrases that are nearly impossible to duplicate perfectly into english.

The NIV almost had me to the point of a nervous breakdown.
Some of the renderings caused me to see ''contrdictions'' that actually werent present in any other version I checked out.

Watch out for new and future editions of the NIV as the direction it is headed may very well be an ungodly one with the gender changes and all.

Do yourself a huge favor.
Dont RELY on any single version and get your self a Strongs dictionary.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Do you mean that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the NIV is based on the Majority Text?

The NIV isnt based on the Textus Receptus.

Its based on the Alexandrian Texts.

The TR and the Majority texts are very similar.
There is some good information in the link about Tyndale and the Bible in my signature if you get the time to check it out.

 

[Follower of Christ]

In the NIV at the end of Mark and in John 7, there are passages that say that some of the verses in those chapters(in the niv) that these verses were not in the most early and reliable manuscripts. What the heck does that mean?

Keep something in mind about the 'older' manuscripts.
They material used was much more durable material.

I believe that they were also not in circulation so its no wonder they survived so well.

The Majority/Byzantine/Recieved texts are alll very similar and seem to be the ones that were being copied by hand and passed around.
They would have faced heavy wear for they were being used daily more than likely.
There wouldnt be a very good chance of finding an older one as once they were wore out a newer copy would be made and used.

Do a Google search for ''Majority Texts''.
Its very interesting.

 

[Reader Nilus]

The reason they were the majority is that if one is aware of history, the Alexanderian text type location fell to the Moslems in the 600's and therefore were not copied as much. The Byzantine text type came from Byzantium and when it fell to the Turks the Greeks fled west bringing the text with them. The newer the manuscript more errors of transmission is also something to keep in mind. The Great Codexes are a great deal closer to the originals than the KJV translators had.
Jeff the Finn

 

[srmitch57]

Hi, just passing through this thread but thought I would comment.

Many Bible translation scholars today agree that the older texts are generally more accurate. The "missing verse" lists given on this forum include examples where older text sources used in the NIV translation (not available to the KJV translators) did not include those verses. So since they were obviously added by human scribes in the more modern texts they have been omitted in the NIV for accuracy.

There is an excellent ebook available for download by one of the NIV translators entitled, "Accuracy defined and illustrated. An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions" go to http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/accuracy/.

It should be noted that the NIV has surpassed the 100 million mark in numbers sold to become the most successful (in sales) English translation sold in an equal time span in history. When I first heard this I thought "so what, God's not concerned with sales and commercial success". I thought that right up to the point where I thought about the sovereignty, power and preemince of God and the spreading of His word in these times and realized thats VERY significant. God has clearly used the NIV translators in a powerful way.

God bless
Steve

 

[filosofer]

Watch out for new and future editions of the NIV as the direction it is headed may very well be an ungodly one with the gender changes and all.

Well, having reviewed major sections of the NT, I find the TNIV (Today's NIV) to be a better translation than the 1984 NIV update. If you examine the gender issue, it is not the problem that some critics claim. In fact, the ESV has as many gender inclusive changes, yet it is hailed as the "conservative" standard of the 21st century, not caving into the "feminist agenda."

I translated several critical texts from the Greek, and the TNIV rendered the passages in some cases more accurately, and certainly better in terms of English style. Given a choice I would use the TNIV over the NIV.

 

[sracer]

The problem with differing translations is not necessarily the words that are used, but that these wording differences are used by some to promote doctrine that isn't correct...

(NIV, 1 JOHN 5:7-8) "[7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

(KJV, 1 JOHN 5:7) " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Some Christian denominations do not believe in the Tri-unity of God...and they use the wording in the NIV translation to support that position.

THAT is where the danger lies. But for those mature Christians who have a solid understanding of Biblical doctrines, the particular translation used shouldn't make a difference.

 

[bjh]

Sracer,
What you say is true. Also, I think that you would agree with me when I say that the same can be said about the KJV. There are at least two groups that I am aware of that either a) only use the KJV (+ the Book of Mormon) or b) they use the KJV or the NWT (JW's). I don't remember that they believe in the Tri-unity of God.
When handled accurately, does the KJV support either JW or LDS doctrine? No, absolutely not. Neither does the NIV. (Is. 9:6; John 1:1-3, 14,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5)

 

[sracer]

Sracer,
What you say is true. Also, I think that you would agree with me when I say that the same can be said about the KJV. There are at least two groups that I am aware of that either a) only use the KJV (+ the Book of Mormon) or b) they use the KJV or the NWT (JW's). I don't remember that they believe in the Tri-unity of God.
When handled accurately, does the KJV support either JW or LDS doctrine? No, absolutely not. Neither does the NIV. (Is. 9:6; John 1:1-3, 14,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5)

I don't believe it is the same thing. Mormons could not support their theology on the Bible (NIV or KJV) alone. That is why they have "additional" revelation in the BoM. The same goes for JW's. Their theology cannot stand up to scrutiny when using the Bible (KJV or NIV) alone. That is why they too have "additional" revelation in "The Watchtower"

The reason why Mormons and JW's initially used KJV was to lend them a sense of credibility among Christians. "See, we use the same Bible as you do..." goes a long way when witnessing to people. For the JW's, when their theology shifted and could no longer be supported by KJV, they devised their NWT. (which was later further modified to support doctrinal changes)

Of course neither one used the NIV because it wasn't around back then.

If someone wants to allegorize scripture, then it doesn't matter what translation they use because they can pretty much make scripture say what they want it to say.

It boils down to proper hermeneutical principles of literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation. Using the same method of interpretation, you could end up with differing doctrine if you use NIV vs. KJV. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I understand that many folks prefer the NIV translation. And I don't "look down" upon those who do. Nor should anyone feel "less of a Christian" because they do. We just all need to be aware that there are differences and what they are.

Heck, I own a copy of the "God's Word" translation which reads as smooth as silk, but contains inaccuracies. I'll read it occasionally when I want to quickly catch up on a story for background. It is very easy to read. But I would never dream of using it for devotionals, Bible study, or research. For that, I stick with the "old notes" Scofield KJV.

(hehe, no, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between NIV and GW ... just that I'm aware of the differences between GW and KJV and use them accordingly.)

 

[bjh]

I don't believe it is the same thing. Mormons could not support their theology on the Bible (NIV or KJV) alone. That is why they have "additional" revelation in the BoM. The same goes for JW's. Their theology cannot stand up to scrutiny when using the Bible (KJV or NIV) alone. That is why they too have "additional" revelation in "The Watchtower"

Okay. I buy that, to an extent.

The reason why Mormons and JW's initially used KJV was to lend them a sense of credibility among Christians. "See, we use the same Bible as you do..." goes a long way when witnessing to people. For the JW's, when their theology shifted and could no longer be supported by KJV, they devised their NWT. (which was later further modified to support doctrinal changes) Of course neither one used the NIV because it wasn't around back then.

Perhaps, but the JW's still permit the KJV.

If someone wants to allegorize scripture, then it doesn't matter what translation they use because they can pretty much make scripture say what they want it to say.

Agreed.

It boils down to proper hermeneutical principles of literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation. Using the same method of interpretation, you could end up with differing doctrine if you use NIV vs. KJV. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Here's where we disagree. Taking the Scripture as a whole, I don't think that you would end up with differing doctrine.

Now, maybe if we took a verse or two out of context, and ignored other verses that are clearer, we might have differing doctrines. (That's where the similarities with the JW & LDS exist.)

With that said, the NIV is not my version of choice. I prefer the more-literal NASB.

I understand that many folks prefer the NIV translation. And I don't "look down" upon those who do. Nor should anyone feel "less of a Christian" because they do. We just all need to be aware that there are differences and what they are.

Agreed.

Heck, I own a copy of the "God's Word" translation which reads as smooth as silk, but contains inaccuracies. I'll read it occasionally when I want to quickly catch up on a story for background. It is very easy to read. But I would never dream of using it for devotionals, Bible study, or research. For that, I stick with the "old notes" Scofield KJV.

Scofield notes? Well, you aren't so bad after all.

(hehe, no, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between NIV and GW ... just that I'm aware of the differences between GW and KJV and use them accordingly.)

My contention is that there are enough differences between the original understanding and modern understanding of the 17th century language of the KJV (or 18th century, if you use the 1769 edition) that people don't understand the KJV like it was meant to be understood.

That's where the NIV has its advantage over the KJV.

-- B. J. H.--

 

[sracer]

Here's where we disagree. Taking the Scripture as a whole, I don't think that you would end up with differing doctrine.

Now, maybe if we took a verse or two out of context, and ignored other verses that are clearer, we might have differing doctrines. (That's where the similarities with the JW & LDS exist.)

Yes. I agree with what you are saying so perhaps I didn't word my post properly to convey the message.

My contention is that there are enough differences between the original understanding and modern understanding of the 17th century language of the KJV (or 18th century, if you use the 1769 edition) that people don't understand the KJV like it was meant to be understood.

That's where the NIV has its advantage over the KJV.

-- B. J. H.--

So given today's English language usage, people are more likely to have a better understanding of the text of the NIV than they are of the KJV. The implication being that it is more likely for the average person to accidentally misinterpret a KJV version of scripture than the NIV equivalent. (Due to the unfamiliar sentence structure and vocabulary found in KJV) And, even factoring in those "inaccuracies" (for lack of a better term) of the NIV, a person could end up with a BETTER understanding of scripture using it than using the KJV.

An interesting point.