Can the NIV version be trusted?

[throughfiierytrial]

The KJV and NIV have been the only books I started out with. It has came to my attention that the NIV has missing verses. And from online I am hearing the NIV and modern versions are Vatican versions.

Then I hear that some of the text of the KJV has been altered because King James was a bisexual and found some things offensive. Now this is just what I heard.

Now I am confused on what I should read or if I can even trust what I read if the words have been changed by man.

The initial effort of the NIV was in part undertaken to produce a clean Bible with no additions/no subtractions and in updated language. Over the years and through different translations it was believed that that additions and subtraction...mostly additions however...crept up in the textus receptus which are the manuscripts off which the KJ Bible and many other modern bibles are based. This was found in comparing a more recently discovered ancient set of manuscripts...the Alexandrian manuscripts. Since these manuscripts pre-date the Textus Receptus it was/is believed they are more reliable and addition free. This became the NIV Bible. To find the "missing passages" (which are additions, but footnoted) one must read the foot notes from time to time...depending on how you wish to read...addition free or have knowledge of the "additions". Also, the NIV while making heavy use of the Alexandrian Manuscripts is considered eclectic in that it is translated in light of the other existing manuscripts as well.
The KJV does have some awkwardness in its use of rather old English and in the translation itself...but won't go into those areas right now, maybe in a later post. I do not agree with what you've been told regarding the actual King James changing passages...only a guess, but I grew up on the KJV.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I use both the KJV and NIV. Both translations have been tested rigorously for accuracy and are accurate. So it's good to pick up both a kid and a Nov bible.

The NIV is known to have significantly changed the text away from the most reliable Greek texts removing the deity of Christ and various others points of attack upon Christian authority and power. It has been rigourously tested and found very wanting. It is worse than the JW Bible. But as I said, the KJV is difficult wording for an uneducated audience which a lot of westerners are now days.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The KJV and NIV have been the only books I started out with. It has came to my attention that the NIV has missing verses. And from online I am hearing the NIV and modern versions are Vatican versions.

Then I hear that some of the text of the KJV has been altered because King James was a bisexual and found some things offensive. Now this is just what I heard.

Now I am confused on what I should read or if I can even trust what I read if the words have been changed by man.

I already commented, but want to add that I only like the NIV84, the new version sports their efforts to make a gender neutral Bible which I very much dislike.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The initial effort of the NIV was in part undertaken to produce a clean Bible with no additions/no subtractions and in updated language. Over the years and through different translations it was believed that that additions and subtraction...mostly additions however...crept up in the textus receptus which are the manuscripts off which the KJ Bible and many other modern bibles are based. This was found in comparing a more recently discovered ancient set of manuscripts...the Alexandrian manuscripts. Since these manuscripts pre-date the Textus Receptus it was/is believed they are more reliable and addition free. This became the NIV Bible. To find the "missing passages" (which are additions, but footnoted) one must read the foot notes from time to time...depending on how you wish to read...addition free or have knowledge of the "additions". Also, the NIV while making heavy use of the Alexandrian Manuscripts is considered eclectic in that it is translated in light of the other existing manuscripts as well.
The KJV does have some awkwardness in its use of rather old English and in the translation itself...but won't go into those areas right now, maybe in a later post. I do not agree with what you've been told regarding the actual King James changing passages...only a guess, but I grew up on the KJV.

I would encourage you to look into the history of the other manuscripts. The oldest copies of the Textus Receptus do not indicate any additions. What is curious is that the "additions" claimed to be there, support the deity of Christ. Hummmmmm. Who would add passages that support the deity of Christ and who would want to claim these were merely added and not in the thinking of the writers of the Bible? This is rarely examined. And the theme of supposedly additions are generally along those lines. This means that we have to believe that editors or othres added passages supporting the deity of Christ that were not originally there. Hummmmmm. Does not take a Sherlock to figure out who was changing what and for what motive. The motive is never discussed in those who suggest passages were added. If it were, one could figure out what was edited.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I already commented, but want to add that I only like the NIV84, the new version sports their efforts to make a gender neutral Bible which I very much dislike.

This tells anyone who thinks about it for 5 minutes, that the sponsors of the NIV have no problem changing the text away from the original. No one would really dare do that with the KJV and continue to call it the KJV without any additional title. THe NIV writers took great liberty as some of them at least had an agenda and it was not to present the truth. IT is highly edited removing the deity of Christ and the power of the church as much as possible but not entirely so that it is not yet apparent. It also uses words that would allow people serving other gods to enjoy reading it as the words for God before so vague, one can mean anyone.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I would encourage you to look into the history of the other manuscripts. The oldest copies of the Textus Receptus do not indicate any additions. What is curious is that the "additions" claimed to be there, support the deity of Christ. Hummmmmm. Who would add passages that support the deity of Christ and who would want to claim these were merely added and not in the thinking of the writers of the Bible? This is rarely examined. And the theme of supposedly additions are generally along those lines. This means that we have to believe that editors or othres added passages supporting the deity of Christ that were not originally there. Hummmmmm. Does not take a Sherlock to figure out who was changing what and for what motive. The motive is never discussed in those who suggest passages were added. If it were, one could figure out what was edited.

Not so fast...don't be a conspiracy theorist please. I am aware of such criticism and at one time...quite long ago...did much research on the NIV and development there of. The additions were added it is believe to reinforce such teachings as the Trinity and such. The church was from time to time under attack by heretics and the addition are presumed made to explicitly fight those attackers.

 

[Devin P]

The KJV and NIV have been the only books I started out with. It has came to my attention that the NIV has missing verses. And from online I am hearing the NIV and modern versions are Vatican versions.

Then I hear that some of the text of the KJV has been altered because King James was a bisexual and found some things offensive. Now this is just what I heard.

Now I am confused on what I should read or if I can even trust what I read if the words have been changed by man.

For the most part the kjv is an alright translation. Don't be led astray by the people that say it's infallible, because it's not. There's errors in it, but truth can still be found in it.

There are other translations that I prefer much more though. There are many words in the kjv that are taken from pagan origins due to the catholic church early on trying to merge pagans into their audienceso as to gain control over more people (don't just believe me, research into it to see if what I'm saying is true.)

I've found that the isr is a good translation though. They even restore His name. We've even been lied to about His name. God isn't His name, it's only a title.

Jeremiah 23:27 - Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

We've forgotten His name for Baal. When you look at the definition of the pagan name for the "god" baal, it literally translates into the english word "lord". (Again, don't just believe me, research into this yourself. Ignore the other posters, and research into it for yourself)

His real name however is יוהו
or YHWH in english characters.

Here's a except from the isr:
Exodus 3:15
And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’

They take the original scrolls (the oldest ones we have anyway) and translate directly from them. So things like God's name or Moses (Moshe) are more precisely translated. Along with many other words.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

This tells anyone who thinks about it for 5 minutes, that the sponsors of the NIV have no problem changing the text away from the original. No one would really dare do that with the KJV and continue to call it the KJV without any additional title. THe NIV writers took great liberty as some of them at least had an agenda and it was not to present the truth. IT is highly edited removing the deity of Christ and the power of the church as much as possible but not entirely so that it is not yet apparent. It also uses words that would allow people serving other gods to enjoy reading it as the words for God before so vague, one can mean anyone.

Different effort...you are not a careful person in your comments.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Different effort...you are not a careful person in your comments.

Well, same book though, same publisher, same freedom. What is the difference? If those publishing the NIV have no problem doing a version more suitable to the sin in the world around them, what is the difference? And calling me names does not make me think you have information to support your position but rather employ an ad hominem argument as you have none.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not so fast...don't be a conspiracy theorist please. I am aware of such criticism and at one time...quite long ago...did much research on the NIV and development there of. The additions were added it is believe to reinforce such teachings as the Trinity and such. The church was from time to time under attack by heretics and the addition are presumed made to explicitly fight those attackers.

If you have arguments please present them instead of starting out name calling. We could discuss this but I did some research and it is highly improbable that the original writers did not present the deity of Christ but this needed to be added later. I highly doubt it. Sounds like story.

 

[Devin P]

For example, there's three distinctly different terms used in the original texts, that are all translated as hell in the kjv, even though it's translated from three entirely different words.

Sheol (a resting place for the dead)

Tarterus (a holding place for fallen angels, a horrible punishment for them that no humans ever go to)

And gey hinnom (which was a place people sacrificed their children to false "gods".). Yet all three are translated into the word hell, which originates from the pagan diety "hel", who was thought to be the ruleress of the underworld and torturess of the damned in the Nordic pantheon.

Same thing for hades, except he's a guy and is the ruler of the Egyptian underworld.

This is just paganism from the word hell and hades that the kjv has hidden in it, and is only the tip of the iceberg. This rabbit hole goes way deeper in the kjv, but most won't care to look into it because of the traditions built around it. If you have the heart to look into these things consider it a blessing, because to him who seeks it shall be found.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Well, same book though, same publisher, same freedom. What is the difference? If those publishing the NIV have no problem doing a version more suitable to the sin in the world around them, what is the difference? And calling me names does not make me think you have information to support your position but rather employ an ad hominem argument as you have none.

Ok, Dorothy...wasn't meaning to call you names though...just pointing out that this is what it is centered around. The NIV 84 is excellent in my view. Also in my view the NIV came under attack by a lot of ignorants who did no research...prejudiced by lack of research on "missing passages" which were not missing but footnoted and may not have been in the original letters.

 

[kiwimac]

I'd prefer version based on 10 000 manuscripts and not two thanks .

The NIV is based off of the oldest MS, MS that the KJV translators did not have. Moreover it was the KJV translators whose sources were limited not the translators of the NIV.

 

[Heavenhome]

There is NO truth in that rumor! While some may call the NIV the Non Inspired Version, that comes from Protestants, and not from the Vatican.



King Jimmy (James I) was not just bisexual, he was straight out gay. He married and had children because that is what Royals do. But he was as queer as a football bat.

The comment on your last paragraph was pretty rude,disrespectful, not necessary and totally off topic to the original post.

 

[Chinchilla]

The NIV is based off of the oldest MS, MS that the KJV translators did not have. Moreover it was the KJV translators whose sources were limited not the translators of the NIV.

Oldests =/= not better .
If you do not use something it does not fall apart so is preserved longer , does not mean it's better . The manuscript was found in monestary in trash can , that's how much it was worth .

 

[DamianWarS]

The KJV and NIV have been the only books I started out with. It has came to my attention that the NIV has missing verses. And from online I am hearing the NIV and modern versions are Vatican versions.

Then I hear that some of the text of the KJV has been altered because King James was a bisexual and found some things offensive. Now this is just what I heard.

Now I am confused on what I should read or if I can even trust what I read if the words have been changed by man.

Every translation starts with a Greek based complied text from thousands of manuscripts. The KJV uses a based Greek text for the NT called the Textus Receptus or TR and it is the 1550 edition of it. The NIV uses a based Greek text called the GNT or specially Nestle-Aland and I think they use the 28th edition so the NA28.

These Greek texts are what differ the KJV as stated uses a much older compiled Greek text using a lot less manuscripts and some of it was reverse translated for Latin when only a partial Greek manuscript was found.

Today more manuscripts have been discovered and it is far easier to compile a more comprehensive and critical Greek text that it seems more apparent that it is closest to the original. From this complied text comes the GNT and from that comes the translation like the NIV.

Technology has started major shifts in translations starting with the TR (Textus Receptus) because the only reason why the TR is around is because of the invention of the printing press. As technology gets better so does our ability to produce reputable critical Greek texts.

 

[kiwimac]

Oldests =/= not better .
If you do not use something it does not fall apart so is preserved longer , does not mean it's better . The manuscript was found in monestary in trash can , that's how much it was worth .

Nope, you are quoting the well-known lies of Simonides there. The pages were not found in the trash.

" . . .The Library at St. Catherines actually has 230 Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from centuries prior to the 19th -- not including the 121 (even more than 90) from the "new finds" -- and almost all of these Sinai manuscripts have a Byzantine and not an Alexandrian type of text! . ."

Source

 

[Chinchilla]

Nope, you are quoting the well-known lies of Simonides there. The pages were not found in the trash.

Still 10 000 > 2

 

[kiwimac]

Still 10 000 > 2

No.

according to the Introduction in the 2011 NIV:

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains.

The Greek New Testament the authors refer to is a compilation of hundreds of different Greek manuscripts. The editors essentially judged all of the variants available for each verse and made a decision as to which particular variant reading to select. Bruce Metzger has published separately a Textual Commentary that explains each decision made. The resulting text is sometimes referred to as the "Critical Text".

Source

 

[kiwimac]

The NIV is known to have significantly changed the text away from the most reliable Greek texts removing the deity of Christ and various others points of attack upon Christian authority and power. It has been rigourously tested and found very wanting. It is worse than the JW Bible. But as I said, the KJV is difficult wording for an uneducated audience which a lot of westerners are now days.

Rot and nonsense.