JD Abshire

First, I certainly do not advocate "burn everything but the KJV" but there are definitely issues with the translation, some serious. Below is a link to a short article written by James Frye who exposes some of the discrepancies, omissions and deletions. 

http://www.scionofzion.com/niv2.htm

Several years back I was blessed by studying after Dr. David Hocking who has a wonderful and extensive series of audio/video messages on the topic of Christology. These are free to stream or download and can be found at:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/hocking_david/Christology/Christology.cfm

Prominent in the study, especially Lesson 6 is the pre-existence of Christ. In a very broad and general sense the professing Church accepts this teaching but belief is primarily based on New Testament passages like John 1:1-3, 8:58, etc. Even so, to many the Lord God of creation, Jesus, The Christ in His incarnation is viewed only as a humble servant who wouldn't hurt a fly, more than a man but less than God.

In the close of Luke when Christ appeared to His disciples He stated: "......... These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:44). 

Wow! Written in the law, the prophets and in the psalms? Should that statement not compel us to see The Lord Jesus in the whole of God's Word? 

Below is one of my personal pet peeves concerning the NIV. 

Very prominent in the KJV Old Testament we find the title "Lord of hosts" and its variation "Lord God of hosts" referenced in 273 verses. Significant? I certainly believe so.
"LORD" (self existent, eternal) "of hosts" (army, warfare, of angels, of sun, moon and stars, the whole of creation).
So who is this LORD of hosts? 1 Samuel 4:4 tells us he dwells between the cherubims on the ark of the covenant. In 1 Samuel 17:45 David told Goliath "....I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied." 

David declares that the LORD of Hosts is his King and his God. "Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God." (Psalms 84:3)
A very familiar passage which is recited frequently from pulpits during the Christmas season is Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Rarely do we hear the next verse, verse 7 “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Who will execute, bring to pass, make it happen? The LORD of hosts will perform this. NIV substitutes “LORD Almighty.

Isaiah states in 44:6 that the LORD of hosts is the redeemer, the first and the last, the only God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
By comparison the NIV substitutes “the LORD Almighty” and “starry host” for “Lord of Hosts”. The title “LORD of hosts” does not even appear in the NIV. 

I believe the plan of salvation is contained in the NIV which the Holy Spirit will honor by operating off the truth of His Word. I also believe an individual can become born again by reading from the NIV and lead meaningful Christian lives. However, our God is a God of jots and tittles, a God who will not honor partial truths, exemptions, exclusions or deletions. Remember the trouble Eve, Adam and subsequently the whole human race got into by her adding to and "imagining" what God meant? (Compare Genesis 2:17 to 3:2-3)

July 12 2015 • 4 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Michael Brown President of Senior Citizen Ministry Hopewell Baptist Church

I watch CBN's The 700 Club every day. One of my favorite segments of The 700 Club is the Bring It On portion in which Pat or Gordon Robertson answers Bible questions submitted by viewers. 

Last week a viewer wrote that the pastor of his church declared that the only Bible to be used is the NKJV translation. 

The people who did that translation of the original language, Hebrew I believe, did so with the technology available centuries ago. The writers of the NIV translated the original script using the technology available today. 

The gist of the Robertsons' answer was that the NIV is just as valid as the KJV and probably more useful because of the modern translation. You should use your own discernment about which translation you use based on what has been included/excluded from that particular version. 

God bless.

July 12 2015 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report

Terry Gillard Worship Leader and Engineer

Years ago, a boy in our Sunday School exclaimed "This is a really old book!" As he struggled to read it, I knew that if the goal of the KJV was to be achieved (that everyone could read it) then we must have a translation relevant to today: The KJV is simply not up to it. Many love it (as do I); most can use it because they are used to it.

However: it is inaccurate - but probably the most poetic translation.
It carries the name of King James, who lived a life completely devoid of any commitment to the God of the Bible.

When the NIV became available it was that "normal" english translation that people could use again; today it is the one I hear the most complaints about. There are issues with the translation: There are certainly issues with its very cumbersome wording - it's just not a nice translation.

For years now, I have used the NKJV because I love its prose, the fact that it is so close to the original KJV - but some tell me it's still carrying some of the inaccuracies of the KJV. 

The translation we use, however, is I believe a red-herring! My Father is living: My Saviour is real - and as I read, I'm not examining the "jots and tittles" - I'm hearing from my Father. I'll recommend the NKJV - but find the one that suits you, and in the pages of which you hear God. That is it's purpose - let the Word of God fill your life with the Life of God!

July 13 2015 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report

Cecil Cox

Wow!. This is a topic that takes study. Most of the anti-NIV comes from the KJV Only crowd. They believe that the KJV is they ONLY true "pure" word of God in English there is and measure ever other bible to that version.

That being said one must then research and learn of the history of the bible translated into English. In the most simplistic answer I can give is this reason for any discrepancy: the manuscripts. 

Centuries back a "manuscript" was a copy of one before it. Now these Manuscripts were painstakingly copied and mostly word for word. Ever once in a while someone who copied would add a comment, not to detract but to help understand that area of verse better. The main verse to show this is 1 John 5:7 also known as the Comma Johanneum. That you can look up. 

When some try to disparage the NIV it was meticulously researched. Yes there are a few verses different, some NIVs with foot notes will explain why. But all of the important stuff is there. Of all of the modern translations, bibles the countless manuscripts a good 96% of the bible is spot on. For over a 2000 year period of time no other book has that degree of accuracy. I do hope this helps.

August 09 2015 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Michael Tinsley Retired Army veteran. Love my Bible (Jesus) and fishing.

I have used the NIV for over 30 years now and prefer it to other translations because it was the first easy to read and understand Bible I was introduced to. I have access to over 60 English translations for comparison but use the NIV as my first choice.

The NIV is also the most popular translation by far, over 450 million sold world wide and, is translated into 14 different languages.

It is a word-for-word, and thought-for-thought rendering and, as Cecil said above, it is over 96% totally accurate and the disputed parts (N. T. Wright and others) point to word choices rather than inaccuracies. 

The KJV was my first Bible and I struggled to understand it at times. Now I appreciate it as never before because the NIV provides an understanding of the KJV I didn't originally have.

I do have one big problem with the NIV and many other modern translations. That is in the translation of Romans 3:22 which in the KJV is, 'Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.'

The KJV uses the 'faith of' Jesus while most others use 'faith in' which makes a _huge difference in understanding faith. We have the faith Of Jesus as a gift from God, Ephesians 2:8-9, which is where faith In Him originates. We're not operating on the little faith we can muster. We have the faith _of Jesus to depend on.

There are many verses in the KJV that use 'faith of' Jesus and I haven't compared all of them with other translations yet but, in this instance the KJV is more accurate and dependable and preferable.

I am no purist when it comes to the NIV. It is just the one I choose to read first.

I suggest you find one that you like best and stick with it but don't be so dedicated that you refuse to compare other translations to get the true meaning of Scripture which is the real reason to read your Bible.

August 28 2016 • 11 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

jacques morreale

I do not believe that our God the Lord of all creation would allow the Bible to become an abomination. We must trust in the Lord God that he guides the hearts and minds of those who translate his word. Let us trust in the Lord our God before we put any trust in men.

February 13 2020 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report