Can the NIV version be trusted?

[Milos]

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.

 

[derpytia]

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.

Disclaimer: I am not a biblical historian or translator by any means

I read the NIV but I have the study version because it has a bunch of footnotes on each page explaining certain translations, word meanings, and context that always refers back to the original text/language of each biblical book.

I've read through the King James and it was a little hard for me to get past the language style for serious study as it was a little distracting.

To each their own. I'd suggest you do your own research on this matter as there are a lot of differing opinions and studies on this matter.

 

[HTacianas]

In a nutshell, they all say the same thing. Though the translators of the KJV lacked the resources for a comprehensive translation. They ended up with things like the cockatrice here and there. In case you didn't know, there is no such thing as a cockatrice.

The NIV is a scholarly and professional translation, but it is oftentimes difficult to agree on which of the original manuscripts are actually original manuscripts.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

No, it does have verses that were likely later additions which are annotated. But if you read your NIV, you know this already and have probably read them in the margins.

And from online I am hearing the NIV and modern versions are Vatican versions.

Being as the NIV doesn't have the Deuterocanon, what would make it a "Vatican version?" Furthermore, why would this be a problem? And where are you reading this stuff?

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.

I don't know about whether or not he was bisexual, but the KJV was a direct response to the Geneva Bible, which was too Protestant for the throne's interests.

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 think you should question the sources that point this out. What's their angle?

 

[Milos]

I don't know sketcher, thats why I asked here. This is one website I found, https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

 

[Sketcher]

I don't know sketcher, thats why I asked here. This is one website I found, https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

Not a credible source. Poorly written, very poorly reasoned, and it simply does not tell the truth about what the NIV teaches.

 

[Heavenhome]

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.

You have asked opinions so I'll give mine. I don't know how anyone can say they are all the same when for instance the NIV leaves verses out as does some other modern versions.
I, personally use the KJV and am satisfied with that. Before discrediting things said you can do a comparison of versions and see for yourself.
As to King James sexual tendencies, this is hearsay. I have read some historical letters he wrote to his son regarding marriage and could see nothing but a strong Christian writing to his son. Perhaps the fact that here was a king who did not have mistresses and illegitimate children, but one wife he was faithful too, made him an easy target for those set on discrediting him. There was a plot to assassinate him

 

[Daniel9v9]

All translations have their own quirks, and in some places, they all embrace certain theological stances - albeit very subtle, and not in a way that should compromise the Gospel. NIV is a good translation in that it has a natural flow that makes it easy to follow. What it lacks, however, is sometimes a precise technical language, which may not make it ideal for study. Here the ESV, for example, may be a better alternative; which is a more word-for-word translation. Though again, the downside with this approach is that some of the meanings may become a little more obscure and challenging to follow.

As for the "missing verses" - most modern Bibles, at least study Bibles, do include them in footnotes or brackets. They are preferred not to be included in the main body as the origin of these verses are historically uncertain, likely later additions.

Going a bit on a tangent for a second, I just want to add that when it comes to study Bibles, you'll probably find that they are very tied to their respective tradition. The Scofield NIV Study Bible, for example, which is very common among Protestants, comes with a distinct Dispensationalist theological view, which shapes the understanding of the Scripture and may suggest doctrines that are not Eastern Orthodox (nor Roman Catholic or Lutheran for that matter)

I think the best approach is to use whatever (commonly accepted) Bible you prefer for devotional use, and a combination of different translations for exegetical use. Using apps like YouVersion, Blue Letter Bible or BibleGateway makes it very quick and easy to compare translations.

 

[kiwimac]

I don't know sketcher, thats why I asked here. This is one website I found, https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

David Stewart is a convicted child molester, so not a good source. Try here for articles on the KJV.

 

[Chinchilla]

None of these is perfect translation because such does not exist , KJV is not changing that much since 1611 so if you want to memorise verses use this version , because NIV will be outdated in few years and replaced by another modern translation and will have different words .

NIV also removes some verses from the Bible , I'd stay with KJV + Septuagint

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

Using the NIV and the KJV versions has not stopped me preaching the gospel so that unbelievers can be born again. That is the most important message for mankind. We can get so messed up over versions of the Bible that we can missed exactly what the Bible was written for.

 

[kiwimac]

None of these is perfect translation because such does not exist , KJV is not changing that much since 1611 so if you want to memorise verses use this version , because NIV will be outdated in few years and replaced by another modern translation and will have different words .

NIV also removes some verses from the Bible , I'd stay with KJV + Septuagint

The NIV removes verses that the KJV translators often added. When the NIV does remove a verse, it places a footnote so that you know.

 

[Chinchilla]

The NIV removes verses that the KJV translators often added. When the NIV does remove a verse, it places a footnote so that you know.

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

 

[DW1980]

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 use the NIV, and yes it can be trusted. You can find out about the translators and its history at https://www.thenivbible.com/

Have a look at James White's stuff on the KJV Only debate, but here's what I would say:

• The NIV was translated from the best manuscripts available
• It was led by a team of over 100 scholars, from many denominations, all committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. This helped eliminate denominational bias.
• It was reviewed by committees book by book to check for accuracy
• The scholars on the NIV are world class experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and all highly credentialed.
• The team also made use of English language research and databases on how English is used to ensure that the English edition uses words accurately, and in a way that is understandable to speakers of modern English.
• The NIV was also the first modern translation done from scratch - all others were revisions of earlier translations (for example the ESV is a revision of the RSV). It was therefore not constrained by established "traditions".

In contrast the KJV (not that I'm dissing it)

• The KJV was translated from late manuscripts, which had additional verses not found in earlier manuscripts - so they were "added", but the KJV translators would not have known this and so translated and included them. This means that the NIV and other modern translations have not removed them, they probably shouldn't be there to start with. As someone else noted, due to the history of them being in the KJV, modern translations have these as footnotes.
• It was translated by a smaller team, who had to consult other languages.
• Whether King James was gay or bisexual is irrelevant - a translation should be measured by how faithful it is to the manuscripts it's translated from. The translators themselves were all committed Christians, and I believe did the best they could with what they had available.
• The KJV uses language no one today uses. The Koine Greek the NT was written in was the "street language" of the day, so I would argue that we should use a translation we understand.

There is one other point I would make. Many of the KJV only sites effectively set the KJV up as the standard by which all other translations are judged. However, shouldn't a translation be judged by how faithful it is to the original languages? On that score, modern translations fare much better than the KJV.

Please note I would suggest you use whatever translation you feel you can understand. I would recommend the NIV, but do always compare different translations when you study. I refer to the NLT, ESV, NRSV, and AMP for study. I read the NLT a lot as it was my main Bible for over 5 years and God spoke to me through it. The only reason I don't use the KJV is I am not convinced that the underlying manuscripts are the best ones to use, and the language is very outdated. However, I do think it is a good translation of the manuscripts it uses, and in its day would have been readable, much like the NIV and NLT etc are today.

It's also important to remember that different translations use different philosophies, so The Message is a paraphrase which is great for leisure reading and if you are confused by what a verse means. The NASB and ESV are very literal, which can mean they are very "wooden" and sometimes make bizarre language choices in English. But they are good for seeing the "word for word" translation. The NIV and NLT falls in the middle, as a "meaning for meaning" translation. That's why I use this as my main Bible, it's a balance of literal, takes into account meaning but they are not paraphrases. (Some people confuse the NLT with the Living Bible which was a paraphrase - the NLT started as a revision, but ended up being a whole new translation - the NLT is not a paraphrase).

I hope this helps

 

[hedrick]

The NIV's text is fine. The KJV is based primarily on a family of manuscripts that, compared with others, tends to have additional verses. The NIV, like most modern translations, omits them because they probably weren't in the original.

However among modern translations, NIV isn't my preferred one. All translations to some extent reflect the translators' views. There are signs of royalist sympathies in KJV. The NIV is evangelical, but shows that viewpoint a bit more strongly than other evangelical translations. I don't have a complete list, but here's an interesting example: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/arbitrary-bias-in-the-niv-against-tradition.html. NIV translates a Greek word meaning "tradition" as "tradition" when it's something bad and "teaching" when it's something good. Evangelicals have at times viewed "Tradition" as a bad thing. Hence the NIV doesn't want to suggest that the BIble endorses tradition, even when it does. Here's another list of NIV translations that appear to reflect evangelical bias: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress....slation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/. As I'm sure you know, there are lots of problem passages in the Bible, where one passage seems to contradict another. There are various ways to deal with this, but the NIV has decided to help out by changing the text to remove the contradiction in many cases. The translation is particularly an issue with Paul. N T Wright (a well-known Biblical scholar) has said that you'll never understand Paul if you read him in the NIV.

The standard critical translation is NRSV. It's still the most accurate I know, although the gender-neutral wording is clumsy at times. (Note that it's only gender-neutral where the original is. It doesn't try to hide the Jesus was male or anything like that or that Jesus calls God a father.) However conservative Christians tend not to like it. ESV is basically the RSV altered to make the language more literal and to use evangelical preferences. (Basically "evangelical preferences" means the things listed in the link above about the NIV. However the ESV does it less often than the NIV.) But despite the fact that it's not as good as the original RSV or NRSV, it's still probably reasonably accurate as conservative translations go. I have no specific objections to Holman or NASB either. To my knowledge, the NIV has the strongest evangelical bias. I'd still prefer it to KJV though.

Now and then I respond to questions in Christian Scriptures on "what does this passage mean?" It's surprising how often people misunderstand the KJV because it uses older definitions of words than we're used to.

 

[Greg J.]

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.

Get yourself an Interlinear Bible like this one. You can see three translations on a page. When you are pondering what you are reading, reading more than 1 translation at the same time is awesome for figuring out the intended meaning of the verse.

I love my interlinear (different than the one at the link) and NASB for helping me better understand the meaning of the original words in Scripture.

However, I love the NIV for understanding the meaning of a verse (the intended goal of the NIV translators). When I am not getting the big picture right for a verse/passage with the NIV, then I check the NLT. It has often gotten my thoughts on track so I can more easily understand the NIV.

From degree of word literality to verse meaning ("dynamic translation"), the Bibles I go to are:

Greek -> Greek-English Interlinear -> NASB -> 1984 NIV -> NLT.

One of the ones that would be even more dynamic than the NLT would be The Message (except I do not find it to be useful, since it is so far from the actual words God gave to us, and can even increases my confusion compared to God's words which I have read before).

I struggle with Hebrew, so I usually let the NASB be the translation I used that is closest to the original language. However, sometimes I look up a Hebrew word—which is a lot easier to do than trying understanding (some) Hebrew sentences.

 

[hedrick]

[deleted. link not as useful as I had thought.]

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

You mean changed into English from Greek and Hebrew? Yes, most have.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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 am not a fan of either the NIV or the KJV. Both are probably adequate enough so I wouldn't make a stink about either though.

The NIV, at least in the original edition I have, made a claim about how they had all of these diverse translators, and that protected them from any bias. But I do find an anti-Catholic bias. And guess what, for all of that diversity they claimed, they didn't bother to have even one Catholic translator. No Orthodox translator either. So when they translate a word normally 'tradition' they do it in such a way to make 'tradition' ALWAYS bad. They call the same word 'teachings' if they don't want the negative spin. They have a bias. http://shamelesspopery.com/the-niv-on-tradition-and-teachings/

The revised NIV I have skipped entirely. I'm not a fan of twisting translations for politically correct reasons. So my first NIV is retired. I thought it was hot stuff initially, but now I think it is a biased version. All translations have bias, of course. But the NIV ain't no 'Vatican Bible'. Not even close.

The one I use now is the RSV Catholic edition. The RSV is more up to date than the KJV, fixing thousands of issues with that old text. The Catholic edition made about 100 listed and footnoted tweaks to the RSV. It seems good enough, accurate enough, poetic enough, memorable enough. For me it seems like the best Catholic Bible out there in English, better than the old NAB and better than the NAB revision, better than the Jerusalem Bible. And it's a complete Bible, not missing any books. And the Vatican even uses it when they quote an English Bible. Not perfect, some liberal bias here and there.

What I would like to see, but probably never will see, is a new translation with evangelical and Catholic and Orthodox scholars and translators working on a true common Bible. Something usable in liturgy and for study and memorization. It could be done. I don't think it will be done.

 

[LoricaLady]

The various translations do not all say the same the same things. Sometimes there are shocking disparities. There is a lot of info online where you can compare Bible verses from one translation to another and see which ones are deviating from what the original manuscripts said. Just Google things like "NIV biblical errors."

Yes, the KJV can be off putting because of its archaic language. I have found, so far, that the Amplified Bible, original, is really helpful. It is called Amplified because it explains some things, in brackets, that might be puzzling in our day and age.

The Complete Jewish Bible, compiled by converted, Messianic, Jews, is also good in my opinion, as it is based on scholarly Hebrew studies. Those Bibles and many more can be found easily at Biblegateway.