[Joshua]

Even though it has been addressed before there are different versions of the Bible. Right now there is a conversation going on in the home section of this website. The main jist of conversation is the attempt to validate the NIV version as accurate. I don't often put an absolute personal oppinion about subjects because I don't want my oppinion to overly influence others discovery of the truth. I am going to give my oppinion about the NIV and feel free to agree or disagree. From my point of view the NIV stands for notoriously invalid version. Not many translations gain this kind of acclaim from me. The NIV is much easier to read and understand than some of the other versions however, a simple Google search brings up a laundry list of errors and omissions contained within the NIV. Oddly enough, most religious cult like groups choose to use this version as their official Bible and often times request that their members use this one and do away with all others. 

Proponents of the NIV will argue that nothing has been removed from the NIV and that the scriptures that are no longer in the text where they origionally were are now in the footnotes at the bottom of the page. I have often stated that you need to do your own research. Don't let someone spoon feed you what they think you should believe. In my efforts to learn more about this I've discovered over twenty eight pages of errors and omissions from the NIV. Some of these are referenced in the footnotes but for the amount of errors overall I will say that this version of the Bible has been taken away from. A lot of what is left has also been reworded in such a way that the meaning has been altered. Sorry folks but once again I believe that this version is a load of P/O/O/P!

If you're wondering I most often use the New King James Version NKJV. This version also has problems so please don't start in on me with this kind of thing. Even though I use this version most often my personal Bible contains the NIV, KJV, NASB, and the Amplified Bible. My NKJV is separate and I often have both Bibles open at the same time and cross reference them while I study. The most difficult for me is the KJV which also happens to be the most accurate translation that we currently have. Did you know that we really do not have and origional documents of the Bible? Just a little footnote for you. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls as far as anything we can reference the accuracy of our Bible with and so far the KJV is as close as we get.

Please do some research on your own. A simple Google search of something like KJV vs. NIV will give you a lot to start with. Know the truth for yourself. Don't take my word or anybody elses word for it! Be convinced in your own mind as the book of Romans puts it.

[Mayor and Mike]

[Mayor and Mike]

Can you give us some examples as to what exactly are the differences between the NKJV and the NIV?

I’ve compared the two versions. I found some differences in the wording and the old English language but the meaning was still the same.

[Mayor and Mike]

So according to the NKJV, we all know that fiery serpents came and bit the Israelites. Numbers 21:6. So then… these dragons came out of no where and attacked the poor people. Seems to me they where set on fire too! Since these serpents were fiery and all.

So what’s the problem with the NIV? Just wondering. I need some examples. Lol.

[genny]

You can find websites about the differences, but they are often from KJV-only people who believe the NIV is an abomination.  But a lot of their complaints I see resolved when you read the footnotes in the NIV.

The thing about Bible translations is that they are all TRANSLATIONS.  Some aim to be more literal, and others aim to be more readable.  I like the NIV because of its readability, but I will also use other translations and an interlinear Bible with Hebrew/Greek dictionary to get the fuller meaning of the text.  Good online resources are biblegateway.com, interlinearbible.com, and studylight.com.

Part of the wmscog's problem is that they seem to use mainly the NIV to compare words without taking into account the original language, so they will call two words the same (in translation) and build a teaching around it, when in Hebrew they are really two different words with different shades of meaning.

[UntouchableJ]

I have to go back into my bible note archives, but an old Spiritual Mentor from College qas very explicit in his concerns for the NIV. He stated that the translations of thr NIV guided a person toward a specific point of thought.

[Joshua]

(Luke 9:56)

(KJV)   "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

(NIV)   "and they went to another village." 

 

(Matt. 18:11)

(KJV)   "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

(NIV)   (whole verse omitted) 

In my NIV bible the whole first part of Luke 9:56 is missing with no explaination anywhere. Matt. 18:11 is missing completely and there is a suggestion in the footnotes that you can find the verse in John. Obviously the context of these verses have been changed by omitting certain key parts.

(Matt. 5:44)

(KJV)   "…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

(NIV)   "…Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," 

For most cult like groups I'm positive that they are glad that the NIV is worded this way especially the way some groups like to talk badly about other groups and how these kinds of groups focus on separating people from their support systems. (Family and friends)

Now please do some homework on your own. I feel like I'm spoon feeding and I really don't like doing that. You need to realize truth for yourself. These are just a few examples that are posted. Thank you and good luck with your research.

 

 

 

 

[Kai TIng]

KJV, NIV are both translations. One should not base the NIV against the KJV in order to see its accuracy. Comparisons can only be done against the original greek/hebrew text. It is indeed true that some verses found in the KJV are not in the NIV, not even in the NIV footnotes.

However, proponents of the NIV will claim that it is the KJV that added to the text, and the NIV chose to take it out because those verses are not found in the earliest transcripts to begin with. There are arguments from both sides. But personally I don't think we should see the KJV as the "original" and base judgements and comparisons against the KJV, for it is also just a translation. 

But of course, NIV is more easily abused, as the language is one that we are more familiar with, and as what genny said, it is easier to take words out of context from the NIV. But I do believe that someone out there could also probably start a cult using the KJV, though it might be harder to do so. 

The problem is not with the translation itself, but the way that people use the translations

[mikeforster06]

The process of translation is no mean feat. The more I learn ancient languages, the more I respect the efforts of each version's translators. Cults were made with the original Greek and Hebrew. Each English translation has weak points.

[Love'n Honey]

I use the KJV with the Apocrypha

[Mayor and Mike]

Thanks Joshua for your examples. I will keep a closer eye on these changes in scripture now that I see some differences. I usually read the footnotes anyways. Even with one sentence missing, the meaning in the paragraph changes. At least the NIV 1984 puts the changes in the foot notes. I’ll look into this further later down the road.

But Joshua you omitted something…

You never gave me your take on these NKJV “fiery” serpents. I gave you mine. Lol. Fire and venom are two very different things.

[Joshua]

I’m afraid that I have not done any research on the fiery serpents. If I were to comment at this time I would just be making it up just to have an opinion. Please understand that I’m not really interested in doing that. Fiery could mean several things and I will claim to be semi-interested in what it does mean.

[genny]

Mayor and Mike wrote:

You never gave me your take on these NKJV "fiery" serpents. I gave you mine. Lol. Fire and venom are two very different things.

I'll give you my two cents. 🙂

KJV and NKJV are more of a "word for word" (literal) translation, while NIV is more of a "thought for thought" (dynamic/meaning) translation.

In Num. 21:6, the word translated serpents is the same word used in Gen. 3 for the creature that tempted Eve, and also in Exodus when Moses staff turned into this creature. It's also in Ps. 58:4, "Their venom is like the venom of a _______, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears"

So the word "serpent" means "snake" rather than "dragon" (besides that our English dictionary also defines serpent as a snake).

The word for fiery comes from a word that means burning, and is only used 7 times in the Bible in two conexts.  One is in relation to the seraphim angels because of their fiery, copper appearance.  The other is in regard to poisonous snakes because of their burning venom.

So in Num. 21:6, the snakes are figuratively "fiery" because they are venomous.

That is why the KJV/NKJV translates literally (word-focused) "fiery serpents" and the NIV translates the more idea-focused "venomous snakes".  (And modern–who calls a snake a serpent anymore? "My science teacher has a pet serpent in his classroom."….no)

[Mayor and Mike]

Thanks for your input there Genny. I was joking about the dragons. Its true it doesn’t say fire breathing serpents. I just wanted to throw that in there for fun and as an example about the NKJV. I’ve never heard of fiery serpents before until I read the NKJV. Its good to compare.

Plus I compare the bible to the WMS all the time. The scriptures and prophecies I find are many. I’m still comparing the two.

[genny]

I figured as much, M&M. 🙂

But I figure there's probably somebody out there reading really wondering if they Bible's got fire breathing dragons in it, and they need to be set straight.

[Mayor and Mike]

Yes Genny, it was my first thought actually. Fiery serpent?… like a dragon? hmm… couldn’t be.

There are always something new to learn in the bible. I thought it was an interesting find back when I found it.

[Mayor and Mike]

Have you Genny or anyone else find an interesting piece of scripture in the bible that’s not well known?

[genny]

Well, there is this verse which causes endless amusement for my my husband and me, sort of an inside family joke because my father-in-law quoted it whenever necessary.  But it only works if you use the KJV because of the old language…

1 Thess. 5:14, "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men."

The phrase "comfort the feebleminded" really means "comfort or encourage the faint-hearted or little-spirited." (The NIV and NKJV are more clear.)

Feebleminded used to mean indecisive, but now it means lacking in intelligence or mentally defective.  So whenever I feel impatient in dealing with someone who seems mentally impaired (whatever their problem, permanent or temporary), I say this phrase to myself, "comfort the feebleminded."  The silliness of the phrase gives me awareness to be patient and show grace, rather than lash out in frustration and annoyance.

I know that's not what the phrase is really for, but God does want us to be patient and show grace to each other.

[Mayor and Mike]

I’ll have to look closer at the Old English when I go through it again. Like the words feeble minded.

I’m glad Joshua brought up this topic. I find it very very interesting. I usually stay with the NIV myself. I should return to the old texts later.

So people have concerns with the NIV? It guides people towards a certain thought while the the KJV is word for word. That’s good to know. I noticed at first glance the 2011 omits some foot notes altogether.

[Joshua]

Mayor and Mike wrote:

I'm glad Joshua brought up this topic. I find it very very interesting. I usually stay with the NIV myself. I should return to the old texts later.

 

You're welcome. I'm glad that you are finding some value with this post. Often times I use the NIV because of its ease of reading. When I find a problem between versions I try to go with the more straight forward one. For me this means putting aside the NIV due to the amount of problems I've found with it. It's a personal choice for me but I base my decision on the idea that nothing should be added or taken away from the Bible.

M&M I really appreciate what you have brought to the forum. There have been several of us posting in here for many years now however, we don't have all of the answers nor can we consider all of the angles this type of topic creates. More voices and ideas the merrier.

Happy New Year everyone!

[Joshua]

1 Thess. 5:14, "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, <strong style=”margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men."

 

Genny, this is great! I'm going to use it!

I noticed you used past tense when talking about your father-in-law however, if he is alive, thank him for me.

[genny]

Glad you like it Joshua. 🙂

Sadly, my father-in-law is no longer with us.  Incidentally, he passed away the same year my sister joined the wmscog, but before she revealed what was really going on.  He had been a wonderful spiritual resource for me because of his experience and scholarship, and I really wanted to talk with him about it but couldn't.  If you believe in the battle between spiritual forces, it was as if the enemy timed this for when I was weak, but God had been strengthening me in my own Bible knowledge and study ability, and He showed me I could handle it without my father-in-law to lean on.