New International Version.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TemplarKnight1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TemplarKnight1 said:
Is it Catholic friendly?
Click to expand...
Not really. I found this thread on CAF that proved that the NIV translators showed deliberate and anit-Catholic bias when translating the Greek NT word παραδόσεις as “traditions” when this word implied man-made teachings, and translating this exact same word as “teachings” when the word implied divinely-inspired teaching.

The 2011 edition of the NIV has corrected the most egregious example of such Biblical abuse (1Cor 11:12), but the other abuses in the NIV translation remain uncorrected.
 
Nor is it really a very good translation, either.

If you want a good non-Catholic translation, try the RSV.
 
I have always heard that it is not a good translation. Believe it or not, I have heard this from mainstream Evangelical Christians too. Granted, I also definitely heard it from KJV-onlyist fundamentalist Baptists. 😛
 
TemplarKnight1 said:
Is it Catholic friendly?
Click to expand...
It is NOT anti-Catholic…it is pro-Protestant…and that is not the same thing. It is a translation that pre-suppsoses Protestant/Evangelical thought…which should come as no surprise to anyone since it was translated by Evangelical scholars.

It is no more “anti-Catholic” than the New Jerusalem Bible is “anti-Protestant”…both are translations which reflect the religious traditions of it’s translators.
 
No partial bible is truth-friendly, let alone Catholic friendly. The NIV strikes me as very dumbed down, and it certainly is agenda-driven.
 
I doubt that the writers of the seven missing books would think that this version is Catholic friendly! 😉
 
teachccd said:
I doubt that the writers of the seven missing books would think that this version is Catholic friendly! 😉
Click to expand...
The books of Maccabees, in all of scripture, first mention the resurrection to eternal life, and tell of the restoration of Judaism (Mosaic Law) to Israel in time for Jesus to be born under the law in order to fulfill it. If God did not inspire these subjects just prior to the Incarnation, then just who did?

And, since it now appears that the Book of Daniel (“one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven”) was also written in the Deuterocanonical time frame* (about 164-167 BC), should that be thrown out along with the other books?
 
One of the general issues with the NIV which have been addressed above, but not explicitly, is that the NIV is a paraphrased translation. I remember hearing a criticism of the NAB of that exact sort, that IT is a paraphrased translation.

Now, I suppose to say these are paraphrased translations is, first of all, to say that they are not literal translations. But, then, after all, which Bibles ARE simply direct translations? Catholics have had trouble translating the Vulgate into English, not to mention overcoming some errors in it.

Remember that the whole concern of the RSV-2CE is to make it Catholic enough for general use.

My reading of various Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament suggests that the work of translation is yet unfinished. In some cases, like in Genesis, the language is so old that translators have to fiddle around a lot to make sense of the text. These translation problems are evident in the footnotes of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (Old Testament, to us).

I attended a bible study in a Christian Reformed Church for four years, and I used the NIV study bible. I thought it was great, but I wasn’t hunting for anti-Catholic witches in it. It was generally a good study bible, good set of cross-references and other supplementary material.

The best-so-far Catholic Study Bible is likely to be the Ignatius Study Bible, whenever it is completed. Based on the NT version alone, it handily includes references to the documents of Vat II and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t wander into the area of patristic commentary of the Bible. For that, I’m in the middle of acquiring and reading the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Intervarsity Press), which has Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut.

The opinion I express from time to time is to decide a lifetime budget for your Bible studies. And then shop around for things you’d like to put on your shelf. Keep in mind, Benedict XVI has said that Jewish commentaries are first-class Bible study aids, but keep also in mind that they must be used with discretion.

I haven’t really shopped for a Protestant Bible commentary series. Understand that I expect a commentary to go a lot deeper into a text than a study bible.

Example. I’m currently reading the ACCS commentary on Luke, which runs over 400 pages. It’s purely patristic oriented commentary, but that ain’t all bad. So many Catholic beliefs – as you would expect – were documented way back. It’s good to see that.
 
Yes, to me, it feels dumbed down, very contemporary. It could probably be a good tool for people learning English, though.
 
— from a Calvinist viewpoint — NIV is not pointedly anti Catholic however it is not particularly Christian friendly either (Catholics included of course). The NIV presupposes a “thought” translation methodology inviting subjectivity which as of late includes such items as gender inclusive language (re. TNIV which will now be melded into the 2011 NIV). There exists a definite revisionist agenda with the publisher. Study Bibles are another matter where the commentary notes are usually independent of the publisher. For worship try to stay close to the Bible translation used in your liturgy. For devotion (prayer and reflection) use something proven and trustworthy, translations that come with baggage of controversy get in the way of intimacy with God. There are many good Catholic translations that should serve your needs, probably any of them would be preferable to the NIV.
 
Buddyroe said:
— from a Calvinist viewpoint — NIV is not pointedly anti Catholic however it is not particularly Christian friendly either (Catholics included of course). The NIV presupposes a “thought” translation methodology inviting subjectivity which as of late includes such items as gender inclusive language (re. TNIV which will now be melded into the 2011 NIV). There exists a definite revisionist agenda with the publisher. Study Bibles are another matter where the commentary notes are usually independent of the publisher. For worship try to stay close to the Bible translation used in your liturgy. For devotion (prayer and reflection) use something proven and trustworthy, translations that come with baggage of controversy get in the way of intimacy with God. There are many good Catholic translations that should serve your needs, probably any of them would be preferable to the NIV.
Click to expand...
Welcome! And, very well and charitably said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top