NIV Anti-Catholic?

[bauerice]

I have read, in many forums, that the NIV is Anti-Catholic. I read the Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and NAB. I have a copy of the NIV for reference. I also have the KJV with Apocrypha. I am curious and want to be more informed. What are the verses that make the NIV Anti-Catholic?

 

[papaspicy]

Here are my :twocents:. From my experience, the actual biblical text is not directly anti-Catholic, although the translation may not be perfect. The real problem comes in with the various introductions and footnotes. In these the editor might direct the readers towards a more protestant interpretation and away from a Catholic version. I can’t quote it directly, but one example that I remember is in John 6, where the footnote simply said, “One should not take the words of Jesus literally here,” and left it at that. Some editions of the NIV are more neutral, others lean towards various protestant theologies.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The NIV is anti-Catholic and LIES because it translates the Greek word for tradition as teachings.

Paul said “Hold fast to the traditions that I have given you”. The NIV says teachings. Why? Because from its Evangelical viewpoint it can’t bear the Catholic concept of SacredTradition.

It translates the very same Greek word as TRADITION whenever it refers to Pharisees and tradition in a negative light.

The Greek word in both contexts is exactly the same but the NIV makes it “teachings” when it suits its purposes.

Who can trust translators like that?

Not to mention the fact that the NIV uses inclusive language and omits many verses in the new Testament.

 

[porthos11]

The NIV is anti-Catholic and LIES because it translates the Greek word for tradition as teachings.

The Greek word in both contexts is exactly the same but the NIV makes it “teachings” when it suits its purposes.

Yes, it clearly shows bias. The problem is not so much the translation of the word paradosis as teachings, but rather its inconsistency in doing so. When it refers to “bad” tradition, then they translate paradosis as “tradition” but when it’s “good” tradition, they translate it as “teachings”.

 

[Bishopite]

I have read, in many forums, that the NIV is Anti-Catholic. I read the Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and NAB. I have a copy of the NIV for reference. I also have the KJV with Apocrypha. I am curious and want to be more informed. What are the verses that make the NIV Anti-Catholic?

First of all what you are speaking of isn’t called the “Apochrypha” but are the dueterocanonicals. Martin Luther, during the reformation in the 16th century began the notion of taking away certain books called the dueterocanonicals (means secondarily included in the canon).
These books were previously used in the Catholic Church for 1500 years. For a few hundred years after the reformation the dueterocanonicals were in Protestant bibles (or in their index) but were eventually taken out by the early 1800’s I believe by the British Bible Society—but I could be wrong on that point. Nonetheless they are only for the most part in Catholic Bibles.

The NIV has a few problems one being its translation of the Greek word paradosis which means traditions…

But no less disturbing than Luther’s case, is that of current evangelical versions of Scripture that systematically expunge the “Catholic” overtones of certain passages by means of translations that significantly alter the meanings of these texts. Some examples of this are furnished by the Reformed scholar, James R. Payton, Jr., who criticizes the deliberate “de-catholicizing” of Scripture in the New International Version (NIV), a widely respected and otherwise excellent evangelical translation. He illistrates this “de-catholicizing” in the NIV’s handling of a number of passages dealing with two key elements of the Church’s “catholic” heritage: the Lord’s Supper and tradition. He points out, for example, that there are thirteen instances of the term paradosis (usually in its plural form, paradosis) in the NT, of which ten are critical of human traditions that have departed from God’s Word. In the other three cases, Paul commends traditions to the churches to whom he writes (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6). Significantly all ten of the negative references are translated by the NIV as “traditions,” while all three of the positive references are deliberately mistranslated as “teachings”—the translation for didaskalia or didache, not paradosis." (“Not by Scripture Alone” Queenship publishing, Sungenis, 1997)

 

[bauerice]

You guys ROCK I knew I could count on you!

 

[Fidelis]

Catholic apologist, bible teacher and former Baptist Steve Ray has a short article on his website that talks about this very subject:
catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/NIVbias.doc

 

[jabajaba]

Not to mention the fact that the NIV uses inclusive language and omits many verses in the new Testament.

Would you share some examples of these omitted verses?

 

[jabajaba]

May I ask? Why so touchy about (teachings, vs. traditions)?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Protestants don’t believe in tradition–that’s one reason they’re apart from the Catholic Church–they won’t listen to it–by not listening to it the Divine meaning of the scriptures cannot be ascertained in the fullness of truth.

 

[richardeekw]

Dear friends

I think it is not very nice to label the NIV an “Anti-Catholic Bible”

Please read the Imprimatur article on “Anti-Catholic Bibles” put up by Catholic Answers.

The NIV English translation is very readable.
It is the footnotes and commentary of some bibles that may not contain Roman Catholic traditional teachings.

I have read sections of the **NIV – LIFE APPLICATION BIBLE **(Nov available in KJV and other versions).
Although some doctrinal teachings may not agree with the Roman Catholic tradition; I do find many…many PRACTICAL TIPS FOR CHRISTIAN LIVING.

(I observe that the Ignatius Catholic study Bible series contains the Roman Catholic Bishops endorsement to the English Translation and also the Imprimatur endorsement to the Introduction, Commentary, and footnotes)

Having said that we must remember NOT TO WORSHIP any English Bible Translation – They are POINTERS (although they are to be held and read with reverance) to the Living God and in Jesus Christ our Saviour and Lord.

I lke the verse in the NIV translation
**Ecclesiastes 7 :29 **
***This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." ***

Or The Good News Bible
***This is all that I have learned: God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated. ***.

God Bless

 

[demerzel85]

I lke the verse in the NIV translation
**Ecclesiastes 7 :29 **
***This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." ***

Or The Good News Bible
***This is all that I have learned: God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated. ***.

Both of which unfortunately do not capture the entirety of what is meant. The Douay Rheims is a literal translation and it reads…
“Which yet my soul seeketh, and I have not found it. One man among a thousand I have found, a woman among them all I have not found. Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Who is as the wise man? and who hath known the resolution of the word?” (Ecclesiates 7:29-30, DRV)

The NIV is uses dynamic equivalence in translating, and it is much more bland that the DRV
“while I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all. This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.” (Ecclesiates 7:28-29, NIV)

And then when you get to a paraphrase translation like the GNB, one reads something that is really very far from what is meant originally…
*“I have looked for other answers but have found none. I found one man in a thousand that I could respect, but not one woman. This is all that I have learned: God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated.” (Ecclesiates 7:28-29, GNB)

*The NIV and GNB are readable, but at the end of the day they have not been translated faithfully at all. There already is a VERY big difference between ‘my soul seeks’ and ‘I search’.

Sacred Scripture can be taken as being Pointers or Road Signs, but even Pointers and Road Signs need to be clear. A Road Sign with letters missing is effectively useless, as is a Road Sign that is obscured. Poor Translations also at times even point in the wrong direction.

Practical Tips for Christian Living? Well having or expressing views at variance with the Sacred Traditions of the Church is in no way practical tips. If one is Catholic then one can very well draw from the treasures of 2,000 years. The Rule of St Benedict for example is very practical.

Yes one should not worship the Translation itself, but in the very first place the Translation has to be faithful.

Anti-Catholic Bible? In charity, I would use the term Mis-Translated Bible.

 

[richardeekw]

Roman Catholics are fortunate to have the guidance of the Wisdom of the Living Tradition of the Church and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to fall back on, when in doubt.

So,… I enjoy the simplicity of the verse…who cares… so long as God knows the intention and depths of my heart and soul…

We must alway pray for the gifts of
-Love (Charity)

• Humility and
• Obedience.

Many Theologians have thought too highly of themselves with “head-knowledge” and have gone off-tangent, so we must all be humble and submit to the Magisterium on teachings in matters of Faith & Morals…Knowledge is important but Wisdom is of higher value.

So personally, I try not to get too uptight on any particular English translation.(although I do have my preference)., cos I know for sure these Biblical translators and Scholars are more knowledgeable and brighter than I am.

…as I hear the Wisdom of the sages:
… WHEN WE ARE YOUNG…WE ARE LIKE “WILD HORSES”…BUT WE WILL MELLOW WITH AGE.… and I have seen this with my own eyes…

Cheers, my friend…,.ank make Like Worth Living for the Greater Glory of God.

 

[porthos11]

Protestants don’t believe in tradition–that’s one reason they’re apart from the Catholic Church–they won’t listen to it–by not listening to it the Divine meaning of the scriptures cannot be ascertained in the fullness of truth.

Actually, Jerry, Protestants do believe in tradition; they just refuse to admit that they do. For example, the very fact that they accept those 66 books in their canon as inspired is in itself a tradition (it is for us Catholics too, except that the number is 72 for us and we have no problem with Tradition) for there is no Scriptural basis for the canon.

That’s why Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. Unless they consider the Table of Contents inspired too.

 

[Contarini]

I have read, in many forums, that the NIV is Anti-Catholic. I read the Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and NAB. I have a copy of the NIV for reference. I also have the KJV with Apocrypha. I am curious and want to be more informed. What are the verses that make the NIV Anti-Catholic?

What do you mean by Anti-Catholic?

All translations have a theological bias, but as with any intellectual work some are better at disciplining (not eliminating, which isn’t even desirable) their bias than others. The NIV is one of the worst that way among translations that are commonly used by Christians today, and its bias is clearly toward a broadly Calvinist evangelical Protestantism and against both Catholicism and the Wesleyan variant of evangelicalism. If that’s what you mean by anti-Catholic, then it’s anti-Catholic.

But if you mean that it reflects the few that Catholicism is some kind of monstrous evil, then no I can’t see that it’s anti-Catholic.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

All translations have a theological bias, but as with any intellectual work some are better at disciplining (not eliminating, which isn’t even desirable) their bias than others. …In Christ,
Edwin

Is there an English translation that is particularly good at disciplining the translators’ biases?

 

[colliric]

Yes it’s terribly anti-catholic.

I talk about it myself on another forum site(for films, in the Off-Topic):

icine.org/lostforums/viewtopic.php?t=7651&highlight=niv+kjv

I get quite animated on it at that forum, but my assertions were well researched and correct, of all the protestant bibles, the one surprisingly which is least corrupted by anti-catholicism is the KJV. I firmly believe that now. as 400 years have passed, the protestant bibles became more and more tainted, till we ended up with the NIV, a terribly anti-catholic translation.

I won’t go into them all but basically the NIV translates alot of things incorrectly including the Greek word Hadou. The KJV and the Catholic Rheims were actually the last bibles, yes even including the recent catholic bibles, which translated that word correctly because Literally the word Hadou actually means “House of Hades”, which was nicknamed into “hades”… It therefore means “house of the ruler of the underworld”… The last translators to take that sense of it were the KJV and Rheims translators.

yes I’m talking about “and the gates of Hadou shall not rise against it”… Hadou is very clearly the Greek concept of eternal damnation under the ruler of the underworld which is Satan.

NIV sucks when it doesn’t bother translating Hadou in it’s literal sense “House of the ruler of the underworld” into English. Catholics understand this verse in the correct sense, as a four letter place beginning with H and ending in double L, even though modern catholic bibles for some reason themselfs don’t seem to jump at putting the word “Hell” in, even though it is very clearly exactly what Christ was talking about… the dominion of Satan not being able to destroy the church.

The NIV screws up other verses as well…

 

[richardeekw]

Yes it’s terribly anti-catholic.
II get quite animated on it at that forum,
The NIV screws up other verses as well…

I feel sorry for you that you are so agitated with the different English translations…especially with Word study from the original texts.
If your interest lies in the “Correctness” in English Translations of the Bible; it may be a good idea to go for a Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures… and who knows… you may be in a new team for a fresh English Translation someday.​

Here is someone with and LSS. & STD
William L. Burton, ofm
Antonianum Friary
2054 N. Humboldt Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773.450.0176
www.biblicist.net

The Pontifical Biblical Institute offers two degrees, the licentiate (SSL) and the doctorate (SSD).

When I received my SSL from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, our language requirements were as follows:

**Modern Languages: **
You had to qualify in Italian, German and English.
If any of these was your native tongue, you had to add another one.
I qualified in Italian, German and French.

Biblical Languages:
Introductory and Advanced Hebrew,
Introductory and Advance Koine Greek, Aramaic, Latin
and another Biblically useful ancient language. Some of which were Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Akkadian, Hittite, Coptic, Greek of the Septuagint, etc.

I finished my SSL there in 1995 and am not sure what their language requirements are today.

I finished my doctorate, not at the Biblical Institute, but at the
Pontifical Gregorian University in Biblical Theology, an STD.​

To speak authoratively on the English Translation of the Bible - we must have the right credentials - such as advanced knowledge in the Original Middle Eastern Languages and Culture. … and I have great respect and admiration with such Scripture Scholars.

I’m not smart enough to do that. So I use any reliable English Translation of the Bible together with the CCC as the “Pointer” to Worship The One Living and True God and to attempt try follow the Ways of esus our LORD…one day at a time.

Praise be to God.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Actually, Jerry, Protestants do believe in tradition; they just refuse to admit that they do. For example, the very fact that they accept those 66 books in their canon as inspired is in itself a tradition (it is for us Catholics too, except that the number is 72 for us and we have no problem with Tradition) for there is no Scriptural basis for the canon.

That’s why Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. Unless they consider the Table of Contents inspired too.

You are so right. I usually ask my Protestant buddies when the start talking the Bible Alone idea, if they go to Church on Sunday? If they say yes, I point out to them that’s Tradition, it’s not in the Bible.

 

[rr1213]

You are so right. I usually ask my Protestant buddies when the start talking the Bible Alone idea, if they go to Church on Sunday? If they say yes, I point out to them that’s Tradition, it’s not in the Bible.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.