i gotta say ive always known the NIV to be satanic from a long time. its actually produced by a the same company that publishes the satanic bible and alot of homosexual books as well. now tell me why do millions of people read and uses the NIV bible. even on 3ABN they use it alot. how can the remnant church be using and teaching from a corrupted bible. and anyone who wanna post garbage trying to defend their beloved NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV and all other corrupt bible versions need to watch the video before they make a comment.
Gracias. Yo personalmente uso varias versiones de la biblia y las comparo. Si no entiendo en una version, miro el texto en otra version o en otro lenguaje. Por eso uso RV 1995 y English Standard Version. Las dos hablan en un lenguaje claro y moderno que es muy util para aclarar confusion.
Thanks. I personally use different versions of the bible and compare them side by side. If I don't understand something in one version, I look up the text in another version or another language. That's why I like the Reina Valera 1995 and English Standard Version. Both speak in a clear and modern language that is useful for clearing up any confusion.
I want to reply to you as a person who holds degrees in both, theology and translation (and taught translation at college level). I do not know if you are aware that the English language did not exist when the Bible was written. This means that all the Bibles that we have today are translations. A translation never matches the original. The NIV version is one that I dislike so much that I got rid of it when I compared it with the original in some crucial passages. However, since ALL translations are to some degree faulty, including the almost worshipped King James, this makes it necessary to search for other versions when the King James comes short of the meaning and misses the substance of the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. That is why we preachers, teachers and writers use a variety of versions in our studies, since the point comes across clearer when the translation is more faithful to the original. This includes some sections of the NIV that are better translated than the corresponding rendition in the King James. The glorified King James is just a version among many. If you want to know the real message from God for you, grab a good concordance and lexicon so you can really dig deep into the knowledge mine of God. No Bible is going to teach you what you can learn on your own with those resources. If you find a Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, it is even better. For example, if you study Psalm 23 in the original, you will see that it is full of sanctuary references. The word table is translated from different Hebrew words. However, in Psalm 23, David chose the word used in Exodus for the table of bread. That bread represents Jesus. David wrote: "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies." If the table was before David, it was in front of him, but it is also in front of the enemies, indicating that the table is in the midst. This can only mean that when we have a problem, persecution or crisis, Jesus, the bread of life, puts Himself in between us and the enemies and we enjoy His presence and communion. Not even one Bible version lets you see that beautiful truth because there is no perfect Bible. Be blessed Jay.
Clark and Martin, thank you for your replies. Both are such good, concise summaries about the whole "which version is the best" topic. Makes me realize even more than ever that it really is OK not to have a "KJV ONLY" mentality. And I heard it said once that the best version is the one you actually read!
Glory to God, thank you Martin. When we have a hungry heart how can we go wrong when lead by the Holy Spirit to search these things out. EGW speaks of these things in Christs Object Lessons, page 125-134.
The King James version is somehow superior? Do you believe in unicorns? The King James Version does:
Numbers 23:22, "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."
Deuteronomy 33:17, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."
Job 39:9-10, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
Psalm 22:21, "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
Isaiah 34:7, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
So, either unicorns do exist or the King James Version is flawed. Which is it?
King James the king who commissioned the writing of the KJV was a very adept student of the Bible and himself a scholar. As a leader, he was stuck between zealous Prysbeterians and Romish Anglicans so he wanted a Bible that was true that the people could read without a political slant. There is no doubt that Gods hand was in the commission of the KJV and I doubt that at that time an Englishman knew the difference between a unicorn or a rhino, (either one would seem fanciful) which is probably the animal that is being talked about.
The NIV tends to define the KJV's "Unicorn" as "Oxen". Now, oxen I have seen. I have yet to see a unicorn. Perhaps there is a reason?:
LOL, I have no idea about unicorns except maybe Obama rides one, but are you saying you do not like the KJV. The KJV is a better version than some and if I have a question look it up. That is one of the benefits of living in a modern world with knowledge at our fingertips.
No, I don't like it. I prefer the NIV for the sake of simple clarity of language to make the point of the passage. Also, the NIV doesn't have unicorns.
Examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV. Here we will compare it with the earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in comparison even with its modern siblings.
Romans 4:1, NIV: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"
NASV (text option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?"
NASV (margin option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?"
First of all, notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which is one of the most important theological terms in the entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis 2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is extremely significant in the Pauline understanding, especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply did not want to include the idea in the English. The NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term while acknowledging they were not certain about what the phrase "according to the flesh" modified.
Hebrews 11:11, NIV (text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."
NIV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who made the promise."
NASV (text option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised;"
NASV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had promised;"
The second NASV reading is a literal reading (so much despised by "the majority" according to James White) and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. ThusHebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV!
The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Now that is arrogance! Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate:
First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful.
With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option).
As I have continued to examine the NIV over the years I have been increasingly impressed with what a poor translation it actually is.
I agree with Bacon and I have other evidence that I unable to share due to the length and format that the NIV is not a good translation. Where as the unicorn argument is not an issue how could a 15th century person know what a unicorn was versus an extinct type of oxen. I see no problem using it as a reference. There are so many other better translations than the NIV.
And not a single unicorn.
Your right as long as we have a proper translation of animals in the Bible its all good. I wonder what a leviathan is? Cannot get spiders confused with insect mind you.