Freethought & Rationalism Archive

southbound69us · 12-02-2003, 11:59 AM

I was reading the KJV thread and was curious about the NIV.
I have some pretty hardcore, albeit (relatively) liberal Christian friends whose church reads the NIV.
Does anyone have the answer to these questions, or can lead me to a sight that does have the answers?

When was it written (composed, translated, whatever)?
Who wrote (composed, translated, whatever) it?
From what other version was it translated?
How 'accurate' is it compared to other versions?
Any other relavent info would be welcome as well.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-02-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by southbound69us
I was reading the KJV thread and was curious about the NIV.
I have some pretty hardcore, albeit (relatively) liberal Christian friends whose church reads the NIV.
Does anyone have the answer to these questions, or can lead me to a sight that does have the answers?

When was it written (composed, translated, whatever)?
Who wrote (composed, translated, whatever) it?
From what other version was it translated?
How 'accurate' is it compared to other versions?
Any other relavent info would be welcome as well.

Hi, southbound!

For one perspective, you can check out this site,

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

And here are some samples,

Quote:

The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!"

The NIV and sexual perversion!

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!

Well, myself I'm certainly not a fundamentalist KJV-only Bible thumper, but I still think that NIV is all wrong... Because it was based on Westcott & Hort Greek text! (See more about Westcott & Hort in the current threads.)

Cheers,

Yuri.

Mike(ATL) · 12-02-2003, 01:33 PM

do yourself a favor and don't listen to a thing by Terry Watkins (@ av1611.org), that guy is off his rocker.

Here's what I believe is their official information found here.

Quote:

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.
The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.

The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983.

I'm not a big fan of the translation for accuracy. It's easy to read for the most part though if you're looking for a quicker read.

southbound69us · 12-02-2003, 04:34 PM

Ok now for a new question....

Accordingly, as the NIV is not considered that accurate then, and the KJV is complete crap (as far as I am concerned), which translation prevelent today would be considered the most accurate (barring any original Greek or Hebrew text)?

Doctor X · 12-02-2003, 05:02 PM

Oh boy . . . for what it is worth, NT scholars tend to use one of the RSV--Revised Standard Version--there is a "New" one--NRSV . . . but then to translate themselves if they do not like it! The RSV has its own "theologically consistent" translations.

For the OT . . . I have also seen the RSV used, but more use the JPS version or . . . again . . . simply translate it themselves!!

Those of us woefully deficient in the languages will always have to be careful with translations.

--J.D.

CX · 12-04-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by southbound69us
Ok now for a new question....

Accordingly, as the NIV is not considered that accurate then, and the KJV is complete crap (as far as I am concerned), which translation prevelent today would be considered the most accurate (barring any original Greek or Hebrew text)?

This has been discussed here numerous times. Perhaps we should add a thread to the reference sticky. In any event everyone has the translation that they prefer and most can reasonably defend their pet translation. NIV relies on the NA27/UBS4 greek critical text which is generally regarded (though disputed by some as Yuri will point out) as having the best greek MSS as exemplars. The KJV is not "complete crap" it's just not terribly close to the original texts and contains a lot of correction and "smoothing". The fact is though we are dealing with an organic and developing tradition. Unless one thinks there is some "original" and "authentic" uniform expression of Xianity (which is itself a confessional stance) there is no reason to totally dismiss the KJV as it is very important in the development of Xianity.

Ultimately to get the best picture you should consult several different translations along with at least an interlinear and lexicon but better yet a Greek Critical Text (and whatever the equivalent is for the Hebrew).

I would use at minimum 3 english translations KJV, NIV, RSV to compare the differences.

Hannibal · 12-04-2003, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX

I would use at minimum 3 english translations KJV, NIV, RSV to compare the differences.

How about the NKJV or the NASB? Any thoughts on those? Also, is the ASV close to the NSV or are they completely different?

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-05-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hannibal
How about the NKJV or the NASB? Any thoughts on those? Also, is the ASV close to the NSV or are they completely different?

Hannibal,

NKJV is KJV with the updated English. A few passages have also been changed based on some different Greek MSS, but not many.

NASB is a revision of ASV, which was similar to the RSV, and based on the same Greek text. NASB is the Gideons Bible. The translation is more literal, compared to RSV, but it represents the same basic Greek text.

For a serious researcher, I recommend consulting both the Majority Greek text, and the Egyptian text. The Majority text is best represented by the YLT, which is a more literal version than the KJV, but also based on the same Greek text.

And the Egyptian text is best represented by the RSV/NRSV, and the NASB.

All the best,

Yuri.

Hannibal · 12-05-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Hannibal,

NKJV is KJV with the updated English. A few passages have also been changed based on some different Greek MSS, but not many.

NASB is a revision of ASV, which was similar to the RSV, and based on the same Greek text. NASB is the Gideons Bible. The translation is more literal, compared to RSV, but it represents the same basic Greek text.

For a serious researcher, I recommend consulting both the Majority Greek text, and the Egyptian text. The Majority text is best represented by the YLT, which is a more literal version than the KJV, but also based on the same Greek text.

And the Egyptian text is best represented by the RSV/NRSV, and the NASB.

All the best,

Yuri.

Thanks Yuri!

Actually, I have a Palm Handheld and have a lot of the Bible Versions available for it, but want to have probably 4 versions (space limited) on the handheld so I can switch between them. I have the KJV, NIV, NASB, ASV, MSG, AMP, YLT, NLT, WEB, DNT, ESV and NKJV. Right now I have the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, YLT and WEB versions on my handheld. Any comments on the WEB, MSG, AMP, NLT, DNT and ESV versions, or what you would consider a good combination of 4 of these versions?

Thanks again for your help!

Hannibal

Grumpy · 12-05-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

John 3:16 KJV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16 NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

A footnote in the NIV gives "only begotten Son" as an alternative to "one and only Son." Which means the perversion must be between "everlasting" vs. "eternal." Or is it "whosoever" vs. "whoever"?

12-02-2003, 11:59 AM	#1
southbound69us Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: University of Washington Posts: 12	History of the NIV I was reading the KJV thread and was curious about the NIV. I have some pretty hardcore, albeit (relatively) liberal Christian friends whose church reads the NIV. Does anyone have the answer to these questions, or can lead me to a sight that does have the answers? When was it written (composed, translated, whatever)? Who wrote (composed, translated, whatever) it? From what other version was it translated? How 'accurate' is it compared to other versions? Any other relavent info would be welcome as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2003, 04:34 PM	#4
southbound69us Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: University of Washington Posts: 12	Ok now for a new question.... Accordingly, as the NIV is not considered that accurate then, and the KJV is complete crap (as far as I am concerned), which translation prevelent today would be considered the most accurate (barring any original Greek or Hebrew text)?

12-02-2003, 05:02 PM	#5
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Oh boy . . . for what it is worth, NT scholars tend to use one of the RSV--Revised Standard Version--there is a "New" one--NRSV . . . but then to translate themselves if they do not like it! The RSV has its own "theologically consistent" translations. For the OT . . . I have also seen the RSV used, but more use the JPS version or . . . again . . . simply translate it themselves!! Those of us woefully deficient in the languages will always have to be careful with translations. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.