Why the NIV cannot be the word of God, even thought it contains portions of God's word.

[SaintJoeNow]

I use all sorts of Bibles when I'm focussing or studying a particular passage. I'll usually see how it is worded in the RSV2-CE; D-R; KJV; ESB; Knox Bible; and sometimes a modern translations such as NIB or NAB. In almost all cases, I find the core meaning of each of them to be satisfactory, but by looking at several of them when digging deep, you can get nearly every sense of the passage by using several bibles for study purposes. When I am just reading the Bible for inspiration, reference for writing, etc. I'll use the RSV2-CE or Knox Bible, as these are both excellent translations/versions which have easy to understand English, while being quite faithful to the Greek/Hebrew. The Knox, in fact is the new Bible of choice for newadvent.org, and is accompanied with the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate in side by side columns all the way through. It is a painstaking English version which not only paid close attention to the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic, but also went to great lengths to keep the intended poetic forms in many of the books, such as the Psalms, which sometimes used an alphabetic type of poetry. It is an astounding work, which went out of print in the 60's, and has recently gone back into print due to heavy demand.

I think the only bible put out with the express intention of misleading Bible readers, and actually changes the theological concepts presented by the Bible is one called the New World Translations, which I believe is or was, (not sure if it's actually used anymore), published by the Watchtower Society. It was the closest I've ever seen to an "activist" Bible, actually preaching a different Gospel than that shared by virtually all Christians. Apart from this one, I think it is all preference for language and flow. No single one Bible should be held up against all others for purposes of deep study on any given passage, but rather many translations into your language should be consulted in order to get the full sense of what the individual passage has to say. For all other purposes, you should read the one which will inspire to you read. The language that suits you the best without being heretical in intent, which as I said, I don't believe any of the Bibles in current usage to be.

This thread is not about all sorts of Bibles, it is about the NIV. Please read the OP again and keep the discussion on topic, thank you.

 

[thankfulttt]

No, it hasn't. It didn't say anything of the sort.

Of course it has. The verse in all other translations say that Job had not sinned, and that Job had not charged God foolishly. The NIV said that Job had not sinned by charging God foolishly. This leaves it open that Job may have sinned in some other form. And this is very important to the narrative.

 

[John Robie]

This thread is not about all sorts of Bibles, it is about the NIV. Please read the OP again and keep the discussion on topic, thank you.

I have. You've ignored me.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Most posters to this point have been respectful of the OP and kept the discussion focused on the NIV as the thread is intended. I'm again asking all posters to keep the discussion focused on the NIV only, either defending it as a Bible in opposition to the OP or attacking it as a fake Bible as the thread is intended to expose it as in reality being a fake Bible.
If you have questions or comments in the middle and are undecided on the issue, they are more than welcome. Please limit the discussion to focus on the NIV. Please do not engage conversations or posts which derail away from the thread title and the OP, which clearly state the topic and purpose of the thread being to discuss why the NIV cannot be the word of God.

 

[Unix]

(Slightly edited when this post was 46 minutes old.)
I agree with Patrick that KJV/NIV/NRSV etc. are inferiour. The ESV is different from them but introduces lots of Reformed/Calvinistic bias since almost all the revisers were Reformed - most of them Presbyterian. For the New Testament the 1971 RSV 2nd Edition remains to large parts my main version. To find out what versions exactly I use and for which parts of the Bible, go to: What Bible translation do you prefer? ... and the links are: In May 2014 I had a Messianic..., I basically don't use any of... and The Bible Version I use. Feeling lost about the OT. - Accordance Forums. Also I list versions without specifying to which extent or for which exact parts of the Bible I use them except perhaps whether for the New Testament or Old Testament, at: What is your "take to Church Bible?". Read all the posts I linked to to see which versions I use and for which verses, chapters or books of the Bible, I haven't yet found a thread where the purpose would be to list that so that's why I haven't yet collected that to one post.

Ecumenism should not be sought by making the Bible (much) more acceptable when it comes to particular verses, for example regarding homosexuality. The Hebrew and Greek clearly condemns homosexuality. Also, female priests are not in the reliable parts of the Bible: I don't see the Paul's Epistle to the Romans as reliable as several Protestant or Evangelical denominations have relied far too heavily on that book. If You have taken some uni theology classes You have noticed or been told by the lecturer how heavy that reliance on Ro is. True, Ro was authored by the Apostle Paul but if female priests should be allowed that should be based on more than one verse at the end of Ro - since a part of the end of Ro is not included in some of the best manuscripts. And I do accept that that verse is talking about a female priest accepted by Paul himself. Even if there may be slightly more support for female priests in the Bible but so extremely little that it can't be defended in any way. But females can teach at any level: elementary-school, high-school, college or uni.
If religion should be as easy as possible - what would be the point of having religion? No, the point is not "so that as many as possible should be saved" - why? - well I'll include a discussion about that in the book I'll finish authoring more than a decade from now. A part of the reason is that people have a much too simplistic view of what it is to "be saved" even making it to something that should happen at an instant by expressing a magic formula. Such interpretation relying heavily on something which smells like "magic" should definitively be avoided at every occasion. "It says in the Bible." - really? Do You summarize the entire Bible in a few sentences? Then You are really not getting it because religion and Christianity is also about knowledge - not always the biggest amount of knowledge possible but see my partially relevant post about avoiding filler low-end books: Re: "Do you want every ebook in the world in Logos?": https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105177/728870.aspx#728870 where I say: "Logos distributes and promotes so much misconceptions (for example outdated '90s and '00s books), lack of scholarly research and popular authors in for example base-packages and sermon collections that it's actually frightening. Users should hide what they don't want, true, but I see little reason other than having it as padding and to increase total book counts to distribute some of what's included in base-packages. This is perhaps slightly off-topic but serves to show how Faithlife continues to fail in this area, and my lack of trust that they'll dare to deny "Christian" books from being listed in the Store. And no I'm not referring to public domain since those books are many times the least harmful content even if not always valuable."
... If You read my entire post, I also clarify my point on education both further down as well as on page 16.
I express what I mean also in the post on page 13: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105177/728555.aspx#728555
... by stating: "The list of authors, publishers, stores, goods, and businesses I avoid or even manage to totally boycott, is always going to be large and constantly growing. Making choices is a responsibility. The point is, if I continue to buy from Faithlife for thousands of $ I'm supporting what they do, even the publishers and titles and authors I really don't want to support. Even if I'm being very very selective all the time I'm supporting that they offer lots of books, because they make profit from what I pay them no matter what exactly I buy the grab the $ they've profited and use it to promote, offer and support titles and products I can't stand that they are selling."
... plus there I complement what MJ. Smith listed should not be allowed in books that are in some way compatible format-wise with Christian Bible Study software.
Further, on page 10 I say (in the post https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105177/728190.aspx#728190 and in it I also give a few examples of good public domain offers): "I would praise Faithlife if they would dare to publish less new books by some popular authors that really bug me. Some of the most popular authors are like idols akin to televangelists except that they are in text form only - people should be helped to discover better scholars. Some theologies are really just invented for a cashflow!"
And lastly, in the post https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105177/727725.aspx#727725 on page 5 I say: "My opinion is that Faithlife shouldn't try to ship all theological viewpoints, whether intended for research-purposes or not. We've just being taking a class about ethnic discrimination and such today here at seminary. Faithlife spreads the interest thin. There are already some good books."
... and in that post I also mention a Bible and an important and often used encyclopedia Edition that are not in any Bible Study software, but could be, so show Your interest! (to get the latest Good News Translation in the Bible Study software, go to: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/48720/595133.aspx ... and post requesting that particular Edition (the 2004 3rd Edition UK-English - they haven't made an American English Edition of that 3rd Edition (the NT in it is the 6th Edition)):

Idealistic in the sense that 'just reading the bible' isn't OK. It depends what interpretation. If people want to choose inferior translations like the KJV/NIV/NRSV etc.

We should strive to have the most accurate, literal word-for-word translation available because the wrong word in the wrong place is no different to thought-for-thought versions like NIV:

So the word of God is supposed to be less than ideal? Does that mean that God's word is whatever less-than-ideal interpretation suits your personal preference, and is not idealistic?

The word of God is supposed to be a "general jist of things" and not idealistic?

It sounds like you are still trying to move the discussion away from the NIV. We will get to your pet version in a future thread and show by the facts of it's history and changes that it is equally wicked as the NIV. Apparently you do not have enough appreciation for the NIV to defend it as being God's word, and I certainly can understand that.

I agree that basing one's doctrines and main reading or even study on the NIV is starvation diet. But if You quickly glance the TOC of all NIV "full Bibles" it's clear that they are not trying to be as ecumenical as possible as they omit each and every Deuterocanonical Old Testament book - the regrettable omissions being Sirach, 1-2 Mc, 4 Ezra:

NIV, the starvation diet. Great comparison:

Jesus said "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". The NIV is designed to be a starvation diet, to weaken the doctrines of God in appeal for ecumenical compromise. The preface makes clear that this is the intention of the NIV.

 

[John Robie]

Of course it has. The verse in all other translations say that Job had not sinned, and that Job had not charged God foolishly. The NIV said that Job had not sinned by charging God foolishly. This leaves it open that Job may have sinned in some other form. And this is very important to the narrative.

And why is that important?

 

[tall73]

All translations may smooth idioms at times. However, I think the NIV, because it is quite a ways over on the "dynamic equivalent" side of things, towards a paraphrase, does it more than a number of others.

Here is an example:
1 Peter 1:13

NIV-Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
KJV-Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

The NIV does not render the literal meaning in the first part of the clause. Instead it renders the idiom into what it thinks will be more understandable. The KJV "gird up the loins of your mind" is much closer to what the literal text says. The NIV is trying to get at the "idea" of what the original text was saying in a way that someone who may not be familiar with ancient near eastern customs may still understand.

The girding up your loins reference referred to the practice of preparations for battle particularly, or fast movement in general. If you wear robes, cloaks, etc. they hang down and can get in the way during running. You had to tie it up or tuck it up to get it out of the way of your legs.

Now in this case it is girding up the loins of your mind. Getting your mind ready for battle, or serious actions, in this case written to Christians who were in the middle of persecution, and a spiritual battle.

The NIV 'prepare your minds for action' doesn't convey the image of battle preparations, and the seriousness of that moment. When you girded up your loins for battle you were getting ready for a grave, life and death struggle.

I would rather a Bible not smooth idioms. If we do not understand an idiom we can look it up or have someone explain it. But you won't know that it is even there if they smooth it.

 

[thankfulttt]

This is the problem with any eclectic text. The problem is to a degree all of our Bibles are based on an eclectic text. The KJV also was based on an eclectic text of the TR, plus readings from the Vulgate, Bishops, Geneva, Tyndale, etc.

They had less readings to choose from, but still had to choose them.

Modern texts have more manuscripts and also a more systematized way of deciding readings.

I believe it is a fallacy to say that modern texts have more manuscripts to choose from. The UBS revisers worked from the Codex Vaticanus 1206. Almost in every instance what you find in the NIV has been extracted from this manuscript.

They threw out all the majority texts and based all other texts as to whether they agreed with the Vatican's 1209 manuscript. It can be seen in all the readings.

 

[tall73]

Also, female priests are not in the reliable parts of the Bible: I don't see the Paul's Epistle to the Romans as reliable as several Protestant or Evangelical denominations have relied far too heavily on that book.

Are you telling us you think that the epistle to the Romans should not be Scripture? I am sure you can have that conversation somewhere else. The Baptist forum has guidelines that preclude that viewpoint.

I have had those conversations in GT, but this is not the place. And if that is your view, that is not a usual Baptist notion to say the least.

 

[tall73]

I believe it is a fallacy to say that modern texts have more manuscripts to choose from. The UBS revisers worked from the Codex Vaticanus 1206. Almost in every instance what you find in the NIV has been extracted from this manuscript.

They threw out all the majority texts and based all other texts as to whether they agreed with the Vatican's 1209 manuscript. It can be seen in all the readings.

Please note that they have many more manuscripts, fragmentary and otherwise,as we touched on during our discussion in your LXX thread in GT.

Now if they choose to not look at those, and not give the majority text weight, that is different than not having them. They have them, they just do not regard them overly much.

Moreover, it is not fair to say that the only thing looked at is Vaticanus. They will look at other uncials in particualr, and even texts beyond that. The UBS or NA textual appratus will show that to be the case, and the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament further outlines their decision making.

I agree however, that it not only comes down to their judgment call, but too much emphasis is given to one, or sometimes two manuscripts. So in practice while they have many more witnesses, if they only listen to a couple, it doesn't make much difference.

 

[thankfulttt]

And why is that important?

In order for you to understand the reason you would have to take the two tests of Job and compare them, extracting that which is different. This verse changes that which is different.

I don't want to go off thread here.

 

[Unix]

No I'm not saying the entire Epistle should be excluded. All I've did is to read modern up-to-date commentaries on Ro, for example Paideia by Frank J. Matera which brought up the question about whether there's manuscript support for the ending of Ro, and that several lecturers in the Evangelical uni seminary I attended pointed out how heavily Churches and congregations have relied on Ro. I know there are efforts to give equal weight basically to all or most of the 66 books, but such efforts are doomed to fail. Whether one likes to admit it or not, inevitably even the most skilled are going to give uneven weight to different parts or books of the Bible. Likewise I recognise that one can't use the entire Bible every hour - but I do accept all the 66 books except Esther (which was not found at all among the Dead Sea Scrolls):

Are you telling us you think that the epistle to the Romans should not be Scripture? I am sure you can have that conversation somewhere else. The Baptist forum has guidelines that preclude that viewpoint.

I have had those conversations in GT, but this is not the place. And if that is your view, that is not a usual Baptist notion to say the least:

Also, female priests are not in the reliable parts of the Bible: I don't see the Paul's Epistle to the Romans as reliable as several Protestant or Evangelical denominations have relied far too heavily on that book.

 

[thankfulttt]

Please note that they have many more manuscripts, fragmentary and otherwise,as we touched on during out discussion in your LXX thread in GT.

Now if they choose to not look at those, and not give the majority text weight, that is different than not having them. They have them, they just do not regard them overly much.

Moreover, it is not fair to say that the only thing looked at is Vaticanus. They will look at other uncials in particualr, and even texts beyond that. The UBS or NA textual appratus will show that to be the case, and the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament further outlines their decision making.

I agree however, that it not only comes down to their judgment call, but too much emphasis is given to one, or sometimes two manuscripts. So in practice while they have many more witnesses, if they only listen to a couple, it doesn't make much difference.

Isn't that my point, that they only use one manuscript. They started by throwing out the majority text, which was the majority of all texts. Then they set the Vatican manuscript as king, and then judged all other manuscripts on how well they lined up with the Vatican manuscript.

 

[hedrick]

Isn't that my point, that they only use one manuscript. They started by throwing out the majority text, which was the majority of all texts. Then they set the Vatican manuscript as king, and then judged all other manuscripts on how well they lined up with the Vatican manuscript.

It was never completely true. But with the discovery and collation of more old manuscripts that dependence is no longer so great. In fact there are now papyri covering much of the NT.

 

[John Robie]

.

 

[thankfulttt]

It was never completely true. But with the discovery and collation of more old manuscripts that dependence is no longer so great. In fact there are now papyri covering much of the NT.

The new evidence is fragmentary sometimes containing only a word or two, and not very good for comparison. Also the variation is very great. When it agrees with the Vatican manuscript it is offered as supporting evidence, and when it doesn't there is silence.

 

[brinny]

Why the NIV cannot be the word of God, even thought it contains portions of God's word.

Let's try to keep the discussion civil and refrain from any form of personal attacks or insults. God allows us all to have varying beliefs in the limbo of this world between heaven and Hell. In heaven God's rule will be perfectly followed and agreed upon by all. In Hell, God's rule will be known in the fire of His wrath which burns against ungodliness of His rebellious creatures, and those creatures can have varying beliefs but will not be able to escape believing they are unable to get out of the heat of the Lake of Fire. I hope to see you all in heaven, I will be there with the Lord soon....very soon, and I'm looking forward to that day with great joy and am enduring whatever sufferings the Lord takes me through, always saying I'm better than I deserve to be because I know I deserve to burn in Hell forever for my sins. If you are not sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, and you have doubts of being completely forgiven now and forever and that you are now and forever saved from Hell, I will be more than happy to show you from the Bible how God wants you to be confident in knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven to be with the Lord forever the moment your time in this world is over...and I will be more than happy to show you from God's word how you can know without doubt that these things are true for you.

Presenting the Gospel to lost souls is the driving force in the time God has given me in this world. All of my posts and threads are intended to sow seeds which might grow toward that intended purpose. The controversy of modern versions is used to bring the focus on God's word. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. We know Him by His written word and His Spirit which is Jesus Christ Himself living in us. They call us Christians because they see us being about and like Jesus. Jesus said the world would hate you the same as they hated Him if you follow Him; if you are not finding His statement to be true, something is missing in the way you are following Jesus. Are you willing to suffer for His name's sake? Are you willing to fall into the ground and die like a kernel of corn which must die before it can become a fruitful plant? Are you willing to take up your cross and follow Jesus? Discussion around these statements and questions are welcome in this thread. The only thing I will not entertain here is posts which focus on attacking the King James Bible.


As many seem to enjoy attempting to validate their belief that the King James Bible is not the word of God preserved in English, in this thread I will make the same attack against modern versions. Starting with the NIV in this thread and then another of the most popular of the 300 modern versions in a following thread, I will show why none of them can be the word of God and are in fact only the word of their version creators using portions of God's word while omitting others, and inserting words that could not possibly be from God because they present doctrines which are contradictory to God.

This thread will focus on the NIV. In this thread I will not entertain discussions attacking the King James Bible, and I ask others to refrain from or ignore any such attacks in this thread. The focus of this thread is an attack against the NIV which purports itself as carrying or conveying the word of God. In Genesis 3:1, the serpent claimed to be exposing the truth of God's word while in fact he was twisting it, and this is in reality what the NIV does. This thread is to expose the sinister attack on God's word in the NIV.

I welcome all questions about the NIV and all comparisons of the NIV to the King James Bible, but any attack against the King James Bible will not be acknowledged by myself and, again, I want to discourage all King James Bible only believers from engaging in arguments which focus on defending the King James Bible rather than attacking the claims of the NIV to be a good or acceptable version of the Bible. The focus of this thread is to show that the NIV is neither a good or acceptable version and should not be held as such by Christians.

Once again, this thread is designed as an expose' of the NIV with the ultimate goal of promoting the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ, hoping to see more souls saved from Hell with full assurance of their home being heaven now and forever. Please focus this thread on attacking or defending the NIV, and not on attacking the King James Bible, or on discussing the power of the Gospel in your life and how others can know that same resurrection power. I will not respond to posts which ignore this request and are focused on attacking the King James Bible more than on defending the NIV if the poster thinks it is possible to defend the NIV as being God's word.

To attacks against the King James Bible, my intention is to reply "this is an attack on the King James Bible more than an attempt to defend the NIV as being the word of God. If you wish to defend the NIV as being, containing, or conveying the word of God, please focus on the NIV as the support of your position, or on discussing the power of the Gospel in your life.

I agree. Especially with the request to keep discussion civil and genteel, even if there is disagreement.

This is an excellent study, and it's one in which a shovel may be required in order to "dig" into God's Word. It is written that those who diligently delve into God's Word WILL be rewarded. God, through His Holy Spirit grants us discernment to recognize His "voice" so to speak in His Word, and when His "voice" is absent. It also reminds me of this verse:

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." ~Jeremiah 33:3

Calling unto God is akin to delving into His Word (as well as praying to Him) and as promised, He (through our Teacher, the Holy Spirit) shows us (teaches us) great and mighty things we did not previously know.

Delving into God's Word is akin to "digging for treasure", and God promises that we will surely find it.

How precious is THAT?

 

[High Fidelity]

I agree. Especially with the request to keep discussion civil and genteel, even if there is disagreement.

The problem arises, Brinny, when the standard by which the NIV is compared to is a translation we're 'not allowed to discuss'.

We are being civil, but it can't be expected to hold something to a standard when the standard itself could and should be questioned for the very same reason the NIV is being questioned; accuracy.

 

[brinny]

The problem arises, Brinny, when the standard by which the NIV is compared to is a translation we're 'not allowed to discuss'.

We are being civil, but it can't be expected to hold something to a standard when the standard itself could and should be questioned for the very same reason the NIV is being questioned; accuracy.

Yet we can still be civil, amen brother in Christ and beloved son of the Most High God?

 

[High Fidelity]

Yet we can still be civil, amen brother in Christ and beloved son of the Most High God?

Of course. It'd just be nice to have civility reciprocated.

Discussion of the KJV was precluded in the OP, but it was made a part of the discussion when it was the standard used to judge the NIV.

As long as all parties can accept that, I can't see why there'd be an issue