Why do some Christians dislike the NIV Bible?

[GodLovesCats]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I do not mind the NIV. It is easy to read and fairly accurate.
It depends on the purpose of my reading. If I am studying for content, I want a more literal/transliteration version like Youngs or Greens literal. If I am reading for devotion, I like a "thought for thought" version like God's Word version.
If I am conversing or teaching, I go for the KJV because it is the most common used and everyone knows it... more or less.
I like the NASV very much. I have a Study Bible and it uses the NASV.

 

[Sketcher]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

I grew up with the NIV, but I didn't like the 2011 edit. Seems that was done because the TNIV didn't sell enough copies. My church quietly transitioned to the ESV after that.

I still have my KJV-NIV parallel Bible, and I intend to take good care of it. The NIV it uses is the 1984 version.

 

[disciple Clint]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

While I am not going to take a position on this, here is some information that may help you. Why does the NIV Bible omit or have missing verses?

 

[Gregorikos]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

#1, people tell lies about it.

#2, people misunderstand translation, and they believe they can judge a translations accuracy with nothing more than a Strongs concordance.

#3, people are jealous because the NIV is the most popular English translation in the world.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I grew up with the NIV, but I didn't like the 2011 edit. Seems that was done because the TNIV didn't sell enough copies. My church quietly transitioned to the ESV after that.

I still have my KJV-NIV parallel Bible, and I intend to take good care of it. The NIV it uses is the 1984 version.

What was changed in 2011?

 

[Sketcher]

What was changed in 2011?

Unnecessary changes to certain gendered pronouns, chiefly. That's what the TNIV was about. After promoting the NIV for years, they flipped and claimed it was damaging which is insane. It's not the text of the 2011 edit that offends me as much as the decision to change it. It would be one thing if it had been correcting genuine errors or if the English language had changed to the point where the translation was beginning to lead people astray (the KJV is mostly good, but it has done this at times), but neither had really been discovered between 1984 and the early 2000s.

 

[Albion]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it?

The language in the NIV is dumbed-down to the point that it's homely and unedifying. This translation is okay doctrinally, but it's like reading the word of God reduced to the equivalent of a reader for lower elementary school children.

There probably are some people for whom this translation is helpful, but unless the person looking to find the best version for himself reads at a very low level, the other ones you mentioned would be better choices.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

I went and bought one in the late 1970’s. So did my later to be wife. But I noticed a bias, and gradually transitioned to the RSVCE. Now I am transitioning to the ESVCE. I never did use the 2011 NIV.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The language in the NIV is dumbed-down to the point that it's homely and unedifying. This translation is okay doctrinally, but it's like reading the word of God reduced to the equivalent of a reader for lower elementary school children.

There probably are some people for whom this translation is helpful, but unless the person looking to find the best version for himself reads at a very low level, the other ones you mentioned would be better choices.

I don't think it is a low reading level at all. People with a lower reading level than me would want the NLT.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I went and bought one in the late 1970s. So did my later to be wife. But I noticed a bias, and gradually transitioned to the RSVCE.Now I am transitioning to the ESVCE. I never did use the 2011 NIV.

What is CE?

I have not read the 2011 Bible yet, but the 1984 NIV was supposed to avoid bias.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

There are two approaches to translating the Bible from the original languages. One is to be as close to word for word as possible. The other is to try and convey the meaning rather than word for word. NIV leans towards the latter. NASB is typical of the former. I've used many different versions. If I had to pick one, it would be the Amplified. It does both word for word and interprets as well.

NIV is more readable than many versions. It may suit new Christians more. There are times when the NIV just nails it. Other times...........

I'm a bit of a nerd, so I use Bible Hub. I can compare all the versions. If I still am not satisfied, I'll read the literal translation. The Berean Literal is good because it uses modern words, unlike Young's.

The best Bible is the one that you have and read. We have the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth. While mental understanding is good, it is useless without revelation from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sketcher]

I have not read the 2011 Bible yet, but the 1984 NIV was supposed to avoid bias.

If you can get your hands on a 1984 NIV, get it - but new copies haven't been sold in years.

 

[returntosender]

Would have been interesting to have a poll on
Who prefers the niv
It's my choice because I can understand it easier.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If you can get your hands on a 1984 NIV, get it - but new copies haven't been sold in years.

I have one, but can't read it anymore. Is there a way to compare the two editions side by side?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Would have been interesting to have a poll on who prefers the NIV.

A better poll would be this:

Which versions of the Bible do you read?

Then list all of the popular English language versions with unlimited choices.

It's my choice because I can understand it easier.

Not only is it easier to read, but the words flow nicely.

 

[SamInNi]

According to Zondervan its publisher, 9 years ago the NIV was “the world's bestselling Bible”. According to the ECPA BestSellers Lists, the NIV is the best-selling version in America. The NIV is also very popular in the UK.

“The first edition of the NIV Bible took more than a decade to translate. And even though the current edition is 95% the same as it was before, the NIV translators spent six years going over every revision… Perhaps no other Bible translation has gone through a more thorough process to ensure accuracy and readability” (Biblica).

Setting aside very vocal fringe attacks on the NIV (including infamously setting fire to it on a BBQ), when considering the NIV impartially the 95% mentioned above tends to be more “dynamic” than I’d personally prefer for my go-to Bible. That was the case back in the 80s when I chose the NKJV instead.

All translations (including the KJV) need a dynamic approach at times — it can’t be avoided when translating from one language to another. But in my layman opinion the NIV certainly relies on it.

Beyond doubt the NIV is “readable” and hugely popular, but when it comes to Bible translations popularity is no recommendation. I remember the original Living Bible in the 70s, and today we have likes of The Message and The Passion Translation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What is CE?

I have not read the 2011 Bible yet, but the 1984 NIV was supposed to avoid bias.

CE is the Catholic Edition, with the complete number of books. RSV and ESV have that option, and any specifically Catholic or Orthodox Bible will also be complete. The original KJV was also complete, but that changed a long long time ago.

As to bias in the NIV, they claim to be unbiased but when you look at the names and affiliation of the translators and editors you will notice who is missing. Not one Catholic or Orthodox was involved. Then if you look up any verse dealing with tradition and they have skewed them. The RSV, for it’s flaws, did better and was more literal and retained a semblance of good English. The ESV also seems more literal and of high quality English. So far I have found no bias although I have only started using it.

The NIV seemed to be a promising translation. I spent years with it. I moved on.

 

[Albion]

I don't think it is a low reading level at all. People with a lower reading level than me would want the NLT.

Whoa. I didn't say that the NIV was at the bottom of that list. There probably are several that are worse. I keep a copy of one of those around here, in fact, just to take a look now and then at how it treats some passage I'm reading in the KJV.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have noticed in multiple Bible version discussions people who are not in the "KJV Only" group avoid the New International Version. Compared to other modern American English translations, what is wrong with it? I only know the NIV, it looks wrong when I read the same verses in other versions, but there must be something to like better in the ESV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, and CSB for people to read them instead.

The 1977 edition was very good, although, to my reading anyway, it appears to sometimes deviate from the other versions/ translations in order to point out alternate renderings of words and phrases, just because most readers don't study the Greek/ Hebrew. And that is what I use it for. I don't like the other editions of the NIV as much because they seem to have gone excessively 'woke' with their neutering of gender.