S
ShyBoy
Guest
Do any of you use the New International Version of the Bible? I have been using it recently and I have found it to be a very readable translation.
What do you think?
What do you think?
- Status
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
I use it only for apologetics.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I use it, sometimes. It is very popular and easy to find, and it is the default on the website where I do a lot of searching, gospelcom.net
Also I once had an audio file of the entire Bible on NIV, so I used to play it 24/7 and indexed it so I could read along whenever I was paying attention to it.
When I post to this site, however, once I found what I’m looking for in the NIV I’ll go to the U.S. Bishops’ web site to get the NAB version, at: usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm
Actually, NAB is also readable, and it is Catholic so it has all the “extra” books such as Sirach and Wisdom.
Alan
Also I once had an audio file of the entire Bible on NIV, so I used to play it 24/7 and indexed it so I could read along whenever I was paying attention to it.
When I post to this site, however, once I found what I’m looking for in the NIV I’ll go to the U.S. Bishops’ web site to get the NAB version, at: usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm
Actually, NAB is also readable, and it is Catholic so it has all the “extra” books such as Sirach and Wisdom.
Alan
M
MichelleTherese
Guest
Why bother? It’s missing several books. I suppose it’s great for apologetics so that a non-Catholic won’t suspect your “corrupt Catholic Bible” but other then that I wouldn’t bother with it.
M
mtr01
Guest
I’ve read through it…sometimes for comparison, sometimes because it’s handy. It’s pretty readable, but there is a theological bias in the translation. For example, the word tradition in the New Testament is rendered as teaching, I suspect to avoid giving support to the Catholic position.
On the whole, though, I’m not fond of the dynamic equivalence translations except as a reference to be used along with a more literal translation. The one I prefer is the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). It’s sort of in the middle of the spectrum between the literal translations (e.g. Douay-Rheims or King James) and the dynamic equivalence translations (e.g., NIV, NAB, or the New Living Translation). Ignatius puts this out as the Ignatius Bible. I highly recommend adding this version to your library.
On the whole, though, I’m not fond of the dynamic equivalence translations except as a reference to be used along with a more literal translation. The one I prefer is the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). It’s sort of in the middle of the spectrum between the literal translations (e.g. Douay-Rheims or King James) and the dynamic equivalence translations (e.g., NIV, NAB, or the New Living Translation). Ignatius puts this out as the Ignatius Bible. I highly recommend adding this version to your library.
O
OAB
Guest
The NIV is a piece of junk bible. Look at 1 John 5:16-17 and compair it to the KJV. THey changed the grammer to reduce the possibilty of interpretation of mortal sin. They transliterated instead of translated.
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Read the preceding posts, if you haven’t.
I used the study-bible version of the NIV when I attended a Coffee Break Bible Study program at the local Christian Reformed Church where I used to live. There was no bible study available in any of the three Catholic churches in our city. Half the people in the study groups were Catholics, and some came a bit of a distance to get there.
It’s a very readable version of the Bible. Yes, I do agree that there are biases in the translation. However, if you are broadminded enough to study scripture with non-Catholics on their turf, then this is a handy bible to use. It may give you insight into their view of things. There were a lot of nice study features in the study bible which I haven’t seen in any Catholic edition.
I used the study-bible version of the NIV when I attended a Coffee Break Bible Study program at the local Christian Reformed Church where I used to live. There was no bible study available in any of the three Catholic churches in our city. Half the people in the study groups were Catholics, and some came a bit of a distance to get there.
It’s a very readable version of the Bible. Yes, I do agree that there are biases in the translation. However, if you are broadminded enough to study scripture with non-Catholics on their turf, then this is a handy bible to use. It may give you insight into their view of things. There were a lot of nice study features in the study bible which I haven’t seen in any Catholic edition.
M
Malachi4U
Guest
My wife uses an NIV Bible. She did not know when she picked it out that it was missing several books and deliberately misstranslated words to fit protestant theology. Misstranslations and missing books and verses make it appealing to most protestants except those like the King James version onlyism cult.
The NIV is very good as protestant Bibles go and is easy to read and understand. I like to use it to help with apologetics and to see what others read.
My wife is not Catholic and I gave her an NAB Bible as a gift for Christmass. She now uses the NAB often to help her understand the parts of the NIV that are missing or misstranslated. The NIV is still her favorite though she now understands all Bible translations have pros and cons.
It is a good Bible though not excellent. I would recommend the NAB, NRSV-CE or DR Bibles as better Bibles
The NIV is very good as protestant Bibles go and is easy to read and understand. I like to use it to help with apologetics and to see what others read.
My wife is not Catholic and I gave her an NAB Bible as a gift for Christmass. She now uses the NAB often to help her understand the parts of the NIV that are missing or misstranslated. The NIV is still her favorite though she now understands all Bible translations have pros and cons.
It is a good Bible though not excellent. I would recommend the NAB, NRSV-CE or DR Bibles as better Bibles
R
RNRobert
Guest
I bought a NIV ‘Student Bible’ about a dozen years ago when I was a Baptist. I found it to be more readable than the KJV (which I had purchased a year or two earlier). Nowadays I rarely look at it except to see how it translates a verse compared to Catholic Bibles. However, it has alot of notes on Bible History (including a list and history of all the kings of Judah and Israel). It even mentions Catholics like St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and G.K. Chesterton, but being a Protestant Bible, paints Luther, Calvin, and Wesley as ‘heroes.’ On the other hand, there isn;t any outright anti-Catholic bias in the notes either.
As MichelleTherese said though, it is missing the deutero-canonical books. I would also recommend the RSV-CE or NAB as good, readable Catholic Bibles. I personally prefer the RSV myself, and you have the watch some of the notes in the NAB, some are pretty liberal/modernistic (i.e late dates given for when a book was written, and a somewhat anti-miraculous stance).
As MichelleTherese said though, it is missing the deutero-canonical books. I would also recommend the RSV-CE or NAB as good, readable Catholic Bibles. I personally prefer the RSV myself, and you have the watch some of the notes in the NAB, some are pretty liberal/modernistic (i.e late dates given for when a book was written, and a somewhat anti-miraculous stance).
J
j_arden
Guest
I am a fairly recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestantism, so for years I was only exposed to the NIV. Zondervan’s marketing of the NIV would make any “secular” publisher jealous. I’ve found the NIV to be generally readable but there are SERIOUS shortcomings–serious and dangerous. Let me share a personal story to explain.
About four years ago two friends of mine were were heading toward divorce. Just to be clear, we were all Evangelicals at the time. I was mainly friends with the husband but I was also close with the wife. Both were very committed Christians when they married only 3 years before. The husband was the main “culprit.” He had all but renounced his faith, told her he didn’t want to be married to her any longer, and, after a couple months of separation, committed adultery. She was willing to try to work things out until the adultery occurred. She was unsure about divorce and asked me if I thought she was justified in seeking one. I consulted my trusty NIV, which told me:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matt 19:9
So, I told her she had every right. Her family and all her Evangelical friends did too. However, anyone familiar with the controversy over this translation of Matt 19:9 knows that the Greek word translated by the NIV as “marital unfaithfulness,” i.e. adultery, porneia does not mean adultery. It means generally unlawful or perverse sexual relations, such as unlawful marriages between siblings. What Jesus meant was that unless the marriage is unlawful, i.e. invalid or actually nonexistent, one cannot divorce and remarry. The NIV translation fits well with Protestants’ acceptance of divorce and remarriage. It does not fit well with Catholic teaching.
Now, I don’t assume blame for the breakup of their marriage or anything like that. It was an honest mistake on my and everyone else’s part. But it was a mistake!One that had significant consequences. I ask myself what would have happened had we all been working with an accurate, unbiased translation?
This experience alone has made me always check for a translation’s imprimatur!
About four years ago two friends of mine were were heading toward divorce. Just to be clear, we were all Evangelicals at the time. I was mainly friends with the husband but I was also close with the wife. Both were very committed Christians when they married only 3 years before. The husband was the main “culprit.” He had all but renounced his faith, told her he didn’t want to be married to her any longer, and, after a couple months of separation, committed adultery. She was willing to try to work things out until the adultery occurred. She was unsure about divorce and asked me if I thought she was justified in seeking one. I consulted my trusty NIV, which told me:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matt 19:9
So, I told her she had every right. Her family and all her Evangelical friends did too. However, anyone familiar with the controversy over this translation of Matt 19:9 knows that the Greek word translated by the NIV as “marital unfaithfulness,” i.e. adultery, porneia does not mean adultery. It means generally unlawful or perverse sexual relations, such as unlawful marriages between siblings. What Jesus meant was that unless the marriage is unlawful, i.e. invalid or actually nonexistent, one cannot divorce and remarry. The NIV translation fits well with Protestants’ acceptance of divorce and remarriage. It does not fit well with Catholic teaching.
Now, I don’t assume blame for the breakup of their marriage or anything like that. It was an honest mistake on my and everyone else’s part. But it was a mistake!One that had significant consequences. I ask myself what would have happened had we all been working with an accurate, unbiased translation?
This experience alone has made me always check for a translation’s imprimatur!
- JP
C
csr
Guest
The Vulgate is the only version of Holy Scripture that has been deemed free of error, and the Douay-Rheims is the standard translation of that. I not only avoid Protestant translations of Scripture, I also avoid modern Catholic efforts to collaborate with Protestants. Most if not all of these modern efforts (NAB, RSV, etc.) are collaborative efforts, not only working with Protestants but working with Jewish writings rather than focusing on the Septuagint. I simply don’t see the point of worrying about what the Jews thought Scripture should say. The Jews do not appreciate revelation. The Protestants do not appreciate revelation. Why would their scholarship be of any interest? We are to live the faith, not be endlessly curious. The originals are of some interest, I realize, but there seems an insipid assumption that these collaborations are beneficial, and I dispute that they are. The translations are themselves insipid, and there is no way to control all the agendas at play. Anyway, a great tool you might like is a freeware program that puts the Vulgate and the DR side-by-side. There are some typos, so double-check passages against print, but it’s handy for desktop reference.
Vulsearch.Sourceforge.Net
Vulsearch.Sourceforge.Net
F
Fidelis
Guest
Steve Ray has a good article about this called “Are All Bible Translations Created Equal?The Protestant Bias of the NIV”
It can be found at his website at:
catholic-convert.com/Des…t.aspx?tabid=34
It can be found at his website at:
catholic-convert.com/Des…t.aspx?tabid=34
O
OAB
Guest
The NIV might be easy to read, but its not a good translation. I frequently consult the NIV, only because most protestants use it. However, the protestants that I do know use the NASB. But the KJV is a better translation. However the NIV is better then te GOod news (TEV) bible. But for ease of reading, the NAB, and the NRSV are better. And I still think that the NIV is junk.
S
ShyBoy
Guest
Would you all consider that the NIV is a more conservative translation than most of the modern Catholic Bibles?
I am aware of some of the evangelical biases in the NIV including the avoidance of using words like “Tradition” and “Works” in verses that portray them as positive. But given that, I have found it to be a very good Bible for general reading. I also really like the NIV Study Bible, because of its helpful illistrations, maps, notes (which are not too biased) and concordance being all in one book.
I am aware of some of the evangelical biases in the NIV including the avoidance of using words like “Tradition” and “Works” in verses that portray them as positive. But given that, I have found it to be a very good Bible for general reading. I also really like the NIV Study Bible, because of its helpful illistrations, maps, notes (which are not too biased) and concordance being all in one book.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
This is a protestant Bible and I am a protestant. It’s a very good translation. If you look at the preface you will notice the translators comments on how this translation came about. Although it is admittedly very different than the King James, it is safe to say that more ancient texts were used and researched than were available in 1611 (the dead sea scrolls for example).
I have an NAB translation and find it very readable and of course is accepted as the truest translation by the Catholic Church (it is the official translation used in mass from what I understand).
One of the posters spoke of protestant bias in this translation. I have to agree - but then the NAB is also admittedly biased. I know I’ll get nailed for the last part, but let’s call apples apples and oranges oranges for Pete’s sake.
NIV was translated by protestants, NAB by catholics. Not much chance of either translating outside their viewpoints.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I find the NIV more liberal in text, more conservative in notes whereas the NAB is conservative in text, more liberal in notes. That make sense?
M
Melchior
Guest
Readable but a lousy translation written at an 8th or 9th grade reading level. The most accurate word for word translations (that are readable) in the English language are the NASB (NAS) and the ESV.
For the Catholic I recommend these.They don’t have the deuterocanonicals but you can always have those from another source. These two Bibles have the complete NT and vast majority of the OT. The ESV in particular is very faithful to the sacramental nature of certain passages and deals wonderfully with the Hebrew poetry of the OT such as Psalms and Proverbs. The NIV misses on all points, IMO.
Mel
R
RNRobert
Guest
What is the ESV?
C
copland
Guest
I used to use the NIV as my main translation until I learned Greek and tested the NIV as a translation. I prefer a literal translation, and the NIV is a mix between a literal and a dynamic equivelint. And the places that they chose to make it dynamic equivelint are the places they often apply a biased interpretation to the text.
Also, the NIV translators used the Biblia Hebraica for their OT format. That is one of the most common OT formats for most Bible translations for the OT. But the problem of that is it is the source that is a Pharisee revision. The Orthodox Jews have altered many of the messianic passages because they opposed the Christian movement. I have relied upon the Greek Septuagint for my OT studies because that is the OT source that the NT authors quoted from 93% of the time when they quote the OT, meaning that the Greek Septuagint is the most trusted OT version for the apostles and the early Church. Good enough for them it is good enough for me!
I have found that the NAB has the best NT translation from the Greek. It is very accurate! The OT of the NAB is nothing to write home about.
If you are a Catholic then I would strongly recommend that you use one of their great versions such as the Duoay-Rheims, NAB, or RSV-CE. The RSV-CE seems to be one of the best choices for an all around great translation.
Also, the NIV translators used the Biblia Hebraica for their OT format. That is one of the most common OT formats for most Bible translations for the OT. But the problem of that is it is the source that is a Pharisee revision. The Orthodox Jews have altered many of the messianic passages because they opposed the Christian movement. I have relied upon the Greek Septuagint for my OT studies because that is the OT source that the NT authors quoted from 93% of the time when they quote the OT, meaning that the Greek Septuagint is the most trusted OT version for the apostles and the early Church. Good enough for them it is good enough for me!
I have found that the NAB has the best NT translation from the Greek. It is very accurate! The OT of the NAB is nothing to write home about.
If you are a Catholic then I would strongly recommend that you use one of their great versions such as the Duoay-Rheims, NAB, or RSV-CE. The RSV-CE seems to be one of the best choices for an all around great translation.
M
Melchior
Guest
Sorry. It is the English Standard Version. It is the newest of the English translations. Here it is online for free.
- Status