jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (57 posts)

Do you trust the New International Version (NIV) Bible?

  1. Ann810 profile image80
    Ann810posted 23 months ago

    Do you trust the New International Version (NIV) Bible?

    It's said that the name Jesus Christ is taken out of the NIV Bible many times.

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12903738_f260.jpg

  2. Ericdierker profile image57
    Ericdierkerposted 23 months ago

    What a sad question. It just seems that nowadays you have to double check Bibles and cross check them with others to be sure you are getting something reasonably close to accurate. If it has been edited and published in the last 50 years it has been copyrighted. If it is copyrighted that law says it has to be substantially changed from other editions -- that is just the way it is. I believe the Holy Bible is God inspired. But I cannot believe that new versions are.
    Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Translations vary. So some of these are actually suspect to man's interpretation of the Word.
    At some point you have to just throw up your hands and not worry about the exact wording and try to somehow just get to the point trying to be made.
    I use a filter. That filter is love. If the way it is translated and I perceive it is contrary to loving each other and God, then either myself or the version is off somehow.

    1. Ann810 profile image80
      Ann810posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The question is only sad because the publisher and editor of the NIV Bible have deleted many verses from it.

    2. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted bible verses? Good! Deuteronomy17:12[The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest, that man shall die.] Real bible is evil as ISIS. NIV is blessing from the real god, the almighty antichrist protecting us from the evil Christ!!!

    3. celafoe profile image62
      celafoeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      peter- you should not comment on things you do not comprehend.   that was under the old testament for the jews only and is no longer in effect,
      Christianity is for everyone and is based on love and forgiveness not punishment.  you bible basher

    4. jlpark profile image84
      jlparkposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Celafoe - can I ask why then are OT verses used by many to condemn gays? And always by Christians - never Jews. I'm genuinely curious, not trying to start anything.
      Eric - translation through three languages to get to English = easily mistranslated.

    5. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      It is interesting, though, there are many who dislike or disapprove of homosexuality, but fewer acts in such disrespectful manner because of it, even fewer start discriminate them, like Christianity does, obviously Christ have less wisdom then human

    6. celafoe profile image62
      celafoeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Jacqui- two reasons, they do not understand that the old testament was fulfilled and not in effect.   they listen to their hireling pastors who do not teach the truth so they can collect tithes that were also done away with at the cross

    7. Steven Jeffers profile image76
      Steven Jeffersposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Eric, great response to this question, and I am going to have to agree with what you are saying. The ancient languages in which the Bible was first written is very difficult to get an exact translation today. Again great post I enjoyed reading it.

    8. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      charlie: Yet, how many people die in the Inquisition, during Christianity era, how many educated was killed for contradicting the bible? How many women were been accused of witchcraft and kill?

    9. jlpark profile image84
      jlparkposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Celafoe - thank you for that.

    10. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Speaking about bible, this seem like an interesting film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_FFNL_jPHE

    11. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Eric I am sorry to tell you that you are a love child & as much as I love you I cant agree with all your love logic. God told us to study to be approved & He wants us learning & growing in word continually & He is pretty explicit  abo

  3. Tusitala Tom profile image61
    Tusitala Tomposted 23 months ago

    Eric Dierker is correct.  In all probability ALL versions of the Bible are inacurrate to some degree.   Firstly, they are interpretations of stories handed down by word of mouth before even the first texts were written. Secondly, there are the differences in culture to the understanding of the first written texts.  Thirdly, there are the semantics - meanings of words - which cause problems even today.

    I like Eric's yardstick.   If it has an appeal to the Infinite, non-judgmental Love we all have within us, then we can use the words as guidance in our own lives.  If it doesn't, and appeals to sectarianism and separation, then lay it aside.

    1. Ann810 profile image80
      Ann810posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Tom your correct. It seems people that read the Bible should use the Original King James Bible, because every "so called" newer version deletes or replaces words and verses. Deuteronomy 23:17 & 1 Kings 14:24 the word "Sodomite" deleted.

    2. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      But Ann, that is part of the rabbit hole you go down. Are you certain that King James did  not add if from the Latin Vulgate.I just read from a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate for Holy See (1582) and it does not have sodomite in it.

    3. Ann810 profile image80
      Ann810posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Eric, I'm concerned about the KJV Bible staying the same, since it is the first English translation after the Hebrew version, and was hoping other newer versions would've not deleted or replaced words for the editor's/publisher's own agenda.

    4. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      In order for them to be copyrighted they had to, just had to, make significant changes from the KJV,  They even have to show the changes. They are derivative works. Probably more important are the books left out like Wisdom.

    5. Ann810 profile image80
      Ann810posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Eric I know the point your making. Although the word of God shouldn't be "changed" unless it's being changed for language translation. The word of God is suppose to change people, NOT people changing the word of God.

    6. Rich kelley profile image59
      Rich kelleyposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The Geneva Bible was the first English bible published in 1560, 51 years before the KJV. The king didn't like the Geneva so he headed up his own translation with a list of rules that had to be followed.

    7. jlpark profile image84
      jlparkposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Just going on the removal of sodomite - if your Bible has the word 'homosexual' in it (partic in Romans + Cor.) it's been mistranslated from the ancient language which did not have such a word - it was invented in the ?1900s.

    8. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      There is only 1 bible phrase I agree with [judge not shall ye be judged] ironically, historical evidence suggest, its Rome's Emperor who really said this, while visiting Israel. But Christian don't follow this bible teaching anyway.

    9. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      ...and doesn't it work right into today's world views which of course we know are AOK by God, right?

  4. SpiritusShepherd profile image61
    SpiritusShepherdposted 23 months ago

    The NIV can be a good translation to start with, because it is one of the easiest translations to understand. However, it does have several verses missing or verses that differ greatly from the original text.
    I prefer the NASB, because it is one of the translations closest to the original Hebrew/Greek.

    1. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      See how this is. We are caught in a world of versions that deviate. We have got to create a base line for interpretation. That interpretation must be love. Jesus commands it. All Bibles by fact must be different. We are required to use discernment.

    2. Ann810 profile image80
      Ann810posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Agreed Jesus commands love, but He also commands not to go against the commandments, which are all throughout the Bible.

    3. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Prove its better to use a bible edited by gov or better abandon bible all together "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

  5. Rich kelley profile image59
    Rich kelleyposted 23 months ago

    The word Jesus is in the NIV New Testament 1301 times

    The word Jesus is in the KJV New Testament 983 times

    Be careful what you believe from the King James only crowd.

    1. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Very interesting. This whole bible version thing is a problem that Christians must pay attention to. The only possible resolution is to read several.

    2. Rich kelley profile image59
      Rich kelleyposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The availability of on line digital translations is Huge. Each translation is at the mercy of the funder of the effort. The Puritans brought the Geneva with them, the KJV was considered the "State" bible.

    3. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I hadn't thought about that. For sure the KJV was written as a protestant effort to smite the church and it was imposed on those under King  James. That is kind of important to consider. A translation made of anger.

  6. LoisRyan13903 profile image80
    LoisRyan13903posted 23 months ago

    I never noticed this with reading the Bible.  But I do have and use the King James Version for the majority of my Bible Study and use the other versions if I find a verse confusing.  The other versions I have are NKJV, NIV and New Living Translation

    1. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Prove that Christ is no better then ISIS Chronicles 15:12-13
      [And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death]

    2. LoisRyan13903 profile image80
      LoisRyan13903posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Well Peter we will see on Judgment Day

    3. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      ISIS is not God, they do not have the rights that He does and He loves us all and if any are put under His judgement we can be sure it is for the good of all and I agree with Lois. We will understand it one day and our faith teaches us that.

  7. celafoe profile image62
    celafoeposted 23 months ago

    NO!!   It is a terrible translation,  but then ALL translations show the predjudices of the translators.   that is why an interlinear bible is so necessary in studying the scriptures.

    1. Rev. Akins profile image77
      Rev. Akinsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I would not call any of the translations out there "terrible", but there are some that I think are more academic, others are more for emotions, and others are great for beginners.

    2. LoisRyan13903 profile image80
      LoisRyan13903posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Charlie what would you suggest for an interlinear Bible?  I would actually prefer an actual book, not one online.

  8. whomtheSonsetFree profile image72
    whomtheSonsetFreeposted 23 months ago

    Yes, that is what I understand too. In fact more than that has been taken out or reworded in such a way as to lessen God's Word. No, I do not trust the NIV. I do, however, trust in the KJV or even sometimes the NASB.

    1. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Who cares, the real bible is F***ed up (Deuteronomy 17:12)
      [The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die.] WTF!!! bible=evil & as bad as ISIS

  9. Steven Jeffers profile image76
    Steven Jeffersposted 23 months ago

    The Bible does tell us not to add or take away from the Word of God, but are we for certain any English version is accurate according to the original scripture. Many times man has had the Bible translated to suit himself. The argument of the NIV being a good translation because it is easier to understand is an argument I do not agree with. If God wants us to understand something we will understand it, and if it is not meant for us to understand then we will not understand the meaning of his Word.

    1. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Prove that its better if we add or take away certain words [“If your brother,, or your son or your daughter or the wife or your friend saying, ‘Let us go and serve other god'  You shall stone him to death](Deuteronomy 13:6-10 )

    2. Steven Jeffers profile image76
      Steven Jeffersposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Peter, you have proven nothing to me, but as a Christian I will pray that you find what you are looking for. However, I respect everyone choices and views, and because of that I am not going to judge or disagree with your belief.

  10. Rev. Akins profile image77
    Rev. Akinsposted 23 months ago

    I have studied the original languages in my schooling. It is funny to me to read a Bible now. None of them are overly close, nor are they overly distant to what the actual original language says. Translation is a funny thing. I would say, if you don't like it, don't use it. But what would be more fun (maybe not for most) would be to take your favorite translation and compare it to the NIV. See what words are changed, what words are different and what words are omitted. If you do this with an open mind (and an open heart) then you can dive deeper into your understanding. The real problem would be saying that one translation is inherently better than others. They all have their good and bad. We can see God equally in all of them.

    1. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Sorry to bursting ur bubble's Rev, but, I say it is better to follow the antichrist, as a rev, no need for me to quote bible passage on antichrist with u, without antichrist it would still be dark ages, for age of enlightment is an antichrist itself.

    2. Rev. Akins profile image77
      Rev. Akinsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah... gonna have to ask you to explain the whole, "The age of enlightenment is an antichrist itself"??? Sorry, I believe all things are done by the sovereignty of God. But would love to chat about it.

    3. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Bible teach all that contradict bible, is evil&lie, yet, bible teach lies (eg it teach earth is only 5000 years old) Age of enligtment allow seeking of truth, by declaring independent from church, thus a blessing from antichrist, who is the true

    4. Rev. Akins profile image77
      Rev. Akinsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Ok, so the general thought is if we take the Bible literal there are inconsistencies. I can agree to that. I would also ask, if we can't take anything (as truth) from the Bible, then where does the notion of the antichrist come from?

    5. Steven Jeffers profile image76
      Steven Jeffersposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Rev. Akins, great post and I admire the fact that you have studied the original languages . I feel that as Christians the Bible teaches us we should stand firm in our faith even when we are facing death. If we do this our reward is great.

    6. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      John 4:1-3 [Beloved, do not believe every spirit, test to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is the spirit of the antichrist] Sound like when Communist China say contradict Mao=Antimao=evil, lie.

    7. Rev. Akins profile image77
      Rev. Akinsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      So the Bible is used to prove we cannot trust the Bible? I think I will stick with my philosophy, it follows love and God's grace in our lives. I hope your philosophy helps you as well.

    8. profile image59
      peter565posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      ok, agree to disagree

  11. JG Hemlock profile image79
    JG Hemlockposted 23 months ago

    Yes. Why? I have three different bibles. KJV, Geneva as well as NIV. Side by side they are mostly identical. I rely on the Holy Spirit to bring me to all truths and not man's interpretation in a book. Yeshua works through all the Words of God via the Holy Spirit.

  12. J Sangeet Sagar profile image60
    J Sangeet Sagarposted 23 months ago

    I fully trust and obey the NIV Bible. It has introduced me the the real Church which was established by God the son, Jesus Christ himself.

    https://youtu.be/HDMOrxBBT5Q?list=PL74860684AAFB9560

    [ BTW, Lord Jesus' name appears more than 1000 times. ]

    But apart from all else, it is the "Word of God" which is conveyed through the Bible, and understood correctly by us which counts, not the publisher. I have three versions with me the KJV, the Good News, and the NIV and am comfortable with all the three, because I concentrate on the "Lord's word" contained in each of them, not the language of the translator or editor of the publishing house.

  13. platinumOwl4 profile image74
    platinumOwl4posted 23 months ago

    No, not this version or any other version. The  people responsible for printing the Bible indicate, " the book is so full of errors it should be under lock and key"

  14. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
    Jackie Lynnleyposted 23 months ago

    I use the KJV in all my studies but I also have a Zondervan bible that is just like KJV but gives added interpretations of certain passages or words. There are not thees and thous either which makes study so much quicker and easier because you know that is not the way I talk so so many of those in a study can make me start yawning real quick.
    I would advise anyone to at least check Zondervan out and compare it to KJV. These others I do not like. The bible itself gives warning of changing the word of God and I do not think it means from Greek to English but the adding to or taking away from the meaning. Clarifying I think is great.

  15. Harlan Colt profile image76
    Harlan Coltposted 23 months ago

    Westcott & Hort chief translators of the NIV belonged to a religious sect called "The Cult of Hermes." The cult rejected the idea that the blood of Christ washed away sin. NIV critics like myself, believe this is why the NIV has removed the blood of Jesus over 44 times from its text. It also swaps places with Jesus and Satan in two verses. Not good! Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away. If you believe that, then there's a better bible out there than one that's been gutted by cultists to put your faith in. I prefer the KJV myself, but I do look up verses in other versions to compare.

 
working