NIV bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Adamski

Guest
I am having problems evangelizing to Protestants that use the niv bible because it is so different is wording from any catholic bible or the king James does anyone have any advise

The niv has heavily edited the entire bible to make versus seem different I’ll give an example below

1 Timothy 3:15
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15*But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
New International Version (NIV)
15*if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I have asked why they choose that bible over the kjv and they say it’s the easiest to read and it doesn’t matter because it’s almost the same, I find the niv very very different from historical catholic or Protestant bibles
 
Sadly, it is a very dumbed-down and agenda-driven translation. It seems to support and encourage the Kindergarten theology that we see here so often. I got one from a Goodwill store only to say that I have one. And, many of its users blame the Catholic Church for altering the scriptures. 😦
 
There’s been a bit of a backlash lately against that translation style in the Protestant world. The ESV was made as a sort of counter to it. Not to mention, the newest edition of the NIV actually has inclusive language, which ticked a lot of people off.
 
Essenes use an entirely different Bible, so I’m not really up on this. 🤷 But this is what I see:

DRA: But if I tarry long,
NIV: if I am delayed,
Mean the same thing. The only possible difference I see here is that “tarry” could be interpreted as a free-will act (i.e., taking one’s time/not in a hurry), whereas “delayed” could be interpreted as due to an external force (i.e., late for work due to a traffic jam).

DRA: that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God
NIV: you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household
Again, these mean the same thing.

DRA: which is the church of the living God,
NIV: which is the church of the living God,
EXACTLY the same.

DRA: the pillar and ground of the truth.
NIV: the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Again, these mean the same thing. “Ground” and “foundation” are both being used here to imply a “base.”

What am I missing here? :confused:

Jala
 
Are you trying to say that the NIV alters the meaning of that verse? If so, I don’t see how. The D-R just uses more archaic language, which is a stumbling block for evangelization purposes.

To evangelize successfully, you have to make a serious effort to see things from their point of view so that you can lead them to your side. You won’t get very far by pushing things at them they do not understand and are not inclined to try to understand. You get the best results by proving the Catholic church correct from their own bibles, and not from one that uses words so unfamiliar to them that they don’t trust it.

I have about a dozen different bibles. My favorites for evangelization are the RSV-Catholic Edition, and the NIV Study Bible. I like the RSV-CE because it’s very close to the KJV, so it is easily accepted by the people I would evangelize. I like the NIV because it uses everyday language and they trust it. Proving Catholic teaching from a bible they trust is very powerful.

There are three problems with the NIV, and one very excellent advantage to using it anyway. First, it is somewhat of a dynamic translation, sometimes giving interpretative translations, whereas the KJV and RSV are more literal. Fortunately it’s not heavy with interpretive language like the Living Bible (also popular with Protestants).

Second, when the same scripture passage is different in the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts the NIV normally puts the Hebrew text in the paragraph and footnotes the Septuagint reading. This goes to the general Protestant bias for the Hebrew OT. In a Catholic bible the Septuagint wording is in the text and the alternative Hebrew wording is in the footnotes. You don’t get an advantage on this one when evangelizing, but you can get points for being a historical scholar. You can get an nice advantage if you are ready to explain why the early church used the Septuagint, and how the anti-Christian Jews decided to stop using it. Point out that when Matthew says, ‘to fulfill the scriptures’ he was talking about the Septuagint.

Third, the NIV Study Bible was footnoted by a team of protestants from all denominations. They go to great length to present a balanced view of the various Protestant interpretations. The NIV Study Bible footnotes really help me understand what they’re thinking, so that I have a starting point for the discussion.

Finally the advantage of the NIV Study Bible: This is one of the most cross-referenced and footnoted bibles I have ever come across. If I get on a topic and keep following the cross-references, I always seem to reach the Catholic conclusion. What does “keeper of the keys” mean? Who was the real mother of Jesus’ “brothers”? When we “discern the body of Christ” are we recognizing the body of believers or the sacred body of Jesus in the Eucharist? The NIV cross-references enable you to put it all together, and prove to Protestants from their own bible that the Catholic teaching is correct.

The only Catholic bible I’ve ever seen which was as extensively cross-referenced as the NIV is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV-CE) which is only available so far in the New Testament, Genesis and Exodus. They’re working on the other OT books.
 
Jala said:
Essenes use an entirely different Bible, so I’m not really up on this. 🤷 But this is what I see:

DRA: But if I tarry long,
NIV: if I am delayed,
Mean the same thing. The only possible difference I see here is that “tarry” could be interpreted as a free-will act (i.e., taking one’s time/not in a hurry), whereas “delayed” could be interpreted as due to an external force (i.e., late for work due to a traffic jam).

DRA: that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God
NIV: you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household
Again, these mean the same thing.

DRA: which is the church of the living God,
NIV: which is the church of the living God,
EXACTLY the same.

DRA: the pillar and ground of the truth.
NIV: the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Again, these mean the same thing. “Ground” and “foundation” are both being used here to imply a “base.”

What am I missing here? :confused:

Jala
Click to expand...
I have to agree with this. What do you see as the differences?

I looked up the same verse in a some other editions such as the ESV, NAB, and RSV plus the RSV Catholic Edition. They all read like the NIV; they use “delayed” and “household”. Here is the RSV Catholic Edition:

“…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the bulwark of the truth.”

How does that differ from the NIV? :confused:
 
Nan_S said:
Finally the advantage of the NIV Study Bible: This is one of the most cross-referenced and footnoted bibles I have ever come across. If I get on a topic and keep following the cross-references, I always seem to reach the Catholic conclusion. What does “keeper of the keys” mean? Who was the real mother of Jesus’ “brothers”? When we “discern the body of Christ” are we recognizing the body of believers or the sacred body of Jesus in the Eucharist? The NIV cross-references enable you to put it all together, and prove to Protestants from their own bible that the Catholic teaching is correct.
Click to expand...
Though I also use other translations, I agree with Nan about the extensive cross-reference system in the NIV Study Bible. The NIV Study Bible is popular with Protestants, not because it’s “dumbed down” or “heavily edited” or agenda-driven; it’s popular because it’s a good system.
 
Does anyone else have a Catholic King James Bible? My mother got this bible for our family Bible, and it’s got the imprimateur and everything. I never hear the KJV being discussed as anything but Protestant so I wondered. It might be handy to use the Catholic KJV if you can still find one.
 
po18guy said:
Sadly, it is a very dumbed-down and agenda-driven translation. It seems to support and encourage the Kindergarten theology that we see here so often. I got one from a Goodwill store only to say that I have one. And, many of its users blame the Catholic Church for altering the scriptures. 😦
Click to expand...
Po18guy—Have you ever looked at the NIV Study Bible, which has been very popular for many years? Kindergarten theology? Can you provide some examples of what you mean being supported by the NIV?
 
Changing the rendering of key passages is what the entire protestant reformation was built on.

That way “The Church is teaching things not in the Bible!” Not in the Bible “anymore” that is.

No where is this more apparent than when the word Hell became Grave in Geneva Bible.

The NIV challenges are just more of the same.
 
Compare the NIV to the NAB(RE):

1 Timothy 3:15
New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
15But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
New International Version (NIV)
15*if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

In terms of an analogy, I tend to think:

NIV : KJV :: NAB : D-R

The NIV has its problems, but it’s far from the worst Protestant translation.
 
I grew up in “Thee and Thou Land,” so my first real Bible was the NKJV. However, I ended up using the NIV, because that was what our Presbyterian church used in Bible study, and that was the Bible they gave us when we left for college.

I liked the NIV because it was easy to read, and now the NABRE for the same reason. I still love my “Thee and Thou” language though, so my next bible will probably be a D-R. I also like the footnotes in the Challoner revision.

The best Bible translation is an approved one that you can read, and in the case of evangelization you would probably want to skip the archaic language. In my experience, that’s a hitch for some folks, which probably includes the people using the NIV. Most of my friends said they chose the NIV over the KJV or NKJV because the “Shakespeare language” was confusing. That probably holds true for Catholics who prefer the NABRE over the D-R.

I did loathe the inclusive language though. The NIV is easy to read, but it has indeed been changed over the years to reflect a more “politically correct” agenda. Yuck.
 
The original NIV is quite a good translation, actually. What you’d want to avoid are the various “NIV Study Bibles”, which often contain Calvinist, Pre-millennial, or other heretical teachings in their footnotes.

The revised NIV with inclusive language, though, is pretty weak; if I want an inclusive language Bible, I’d stick with the New Jerusalem. 🙂
 
AbideWithMe said:
Po18guy—Have you ever looked at the NIV Study Bible, which has been very popular for many years? Kindergarten theology? Can you provide some examples of what you mean being supported by the NIV?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head: In the KJV and many other ancient translations back to the Vulgate, 2 Cor 2:10 attests that Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ. The reformers agtreed with this. The NIV (and many other modern translations) says in the “presence” of Christ. How do we forgive outside of Christ’s presence? Jerome translated it as in persona Christi.

Luke 24:35 The disciples on the road to Emmaus. Traditional translations have those two recognizing Jesus “in the breaking of the bread”, tying JEsus explicitly to the bread. The NIV ‘simples’ that down to “when he broke the bread”, making the connection appear almost coincidental in nature. Naturally, it reduces or eliminates the Eucharistic aspect from the event. Small changes, but the NIV is replete with such alterations and simplifications.

The NIV, being an evangelical/fundamentalist-skewed translation, is useful for those “Me and Jesus” types whose theology is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is a translation that does not specifically encourage the deepening of thought. As compared with older translations, it strikes me as decidedly revisionist. The NASB is better, in my eyes.
 
po18guy said:
Off the top of my head: In the KJV and many other ancient translations back to the Vulgate, 2 Cor 2:10 attests that Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ. The reformers agtreed with this. The NIV (and many other modern translations) says in the “presence” of Christ. How do we forgive outside of Christ’s presence? Jerome translated it as in persona Christi.

Luke 24:35 The disciples on the road to Emmaus. Traditional translations have those two recognizing Jesus “in the breaking of the bread”, tying JEsus explicitly to the bread. The NIV ‘simples’ that down to “when he broke the bread”, making the connection appear almost coincidental in nature. Naturally, it reduces or eliminates the Eucharistic aspect from the event. Small changes, but the NIV is replete with such alterations and simplifications.

The NIV, being an evangelical/fundamentalist-skewed translation, is useful for those “Me and Jesus” types whose theology is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is a translation that does not specifically encourage the deepening of thought. As compared with older translations, it strikes me as decidedly revisionist. The NASB is better, in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Po18guy–For 2 Corinthians 2:10, the NIV has “in the sight of Christ” which seems like a good translation. Some other translations use “in the presence of Christ”, as you noted, and others use “in the person of Christ”. Here is a link with different translations and commentary: bible.cc/2_corinthians/2-10.htm. The word in question is “prosopon” which pertains to the part of a face around the eye. I don’t know Greek well enough to read the whole passage in 2 Corinthians, but I see the word “prosopon” is most often translated elsewhere in the NIV as “face”, “sight”, or “presence”. An another example of the NIV translating it as “sight” is in Luke 2:31:

“For my eyes have seen your salvation, which You have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to Your people Israel.”

Not being a Greek expert I could be wrong, but it seems to me that “in the sight of” is a better translation for “prosopon” than “in the person of” judging by uses such as Luke 2:31—"…which You have prepared in the person of all people" doesn’t make sense. 🤷 Maybe there are other modifiers in these passages which a Greek expert would recognize. IDK.

In Luke 24:35, yes, “in breaking of bread” is a better, more literal translation. However, I don’t see the NIV use of “when He broke bread” as making it look like mere coincidence. When did the two disciples recognize Him?—“when He broke bread”. They didn’t need to recognize Him in the broken bread, because He was right there in front of them. Plus, anyone reading Luke 24 in the NIV will see verses 30-32:

"When He was at the table with them, He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes where opened and they recognized Him, and He disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’ "
 
AbideWithMe said:
Po18guy–For 2 Corinthians 2:10, the NIV has “in the sight of Christ” which seems like a good translation. Some other translations use “in the presence of Christ”, as you noted, and others use “in the person of Christ”. Here is a link with different translations and commentary: bible.cc/2_corinthians/2-10.htm. The word in question is “prosopon” which pertains to the part of a face around the eye. I don’t know Greek well enough to read the whole passage in 2 Corinthians, but I see the word “prosopon” is most often translated elsewhere in the NIV as “face”, “sight”, or “presence”. An another example of the NIV translating it as “sight” is in Luke 2:31:

“For my eyes have seen your salvation, which You have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to Your people Israel.”

Not being a Greek expert I could be wrong, but it seems to me that “in the sight of” is a better translation for “prosopon” than “in the person of” judging by uses such as Luke 2:31—"…which You have prepared in the person of all people" doesn’t make sense. 🤷 Maybe there are other modifiers in these passages which a Greek expert would recognize. IDK.

In Luke 24:35, yes, “in breaking of bread” is a better, more literal translation. However, I don’t see the NIV use of “when He broke bread” as making it look like mere coincidence. When did the two disciples recognize Him?—“when He broke bread”. They didn’t need to recognize Him in the broken bread, because He was right there in front of them. Plus, anyone reading Luke 24 in the NIV will see verses 30-32:

"When He was at the table with them, He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes where opened and they recognized Him, and He disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’ "
Click to expand...
I am wondering just what was lacking in the NASB that made the NIV a requirement? If you Google the NIV, there are even protestant claims that it denies the Divinity of Christ! I accuse it only of being agenda-driven.

Every linguistic translation has some wiggle room, due to the vagaries of language. The problem is that the NIV so often seems to wiggle in the opposite direction of the positions taken by the earlier reformers - never mind the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. So, what has changed, I wonder?

From a Catholic perspective, it is at best only 90% of scripture that has been used since day 1 in the Church. A reminder here that, if an OT scripture was not used at the time of the founding of the Church, it was not later included.
 
Having studied to be a pastor in a denomination where the preferred Bible was the NIV, I’d just like to say this: at least in the editions from the '90’s, I have found very little difference between the NIV and the NABRE, which I now use because it is the translation used at Mass, and when I write I want to use the translation the “average joe” is familiar with. Also, at least in the older versions of the NIV, the footnotes and such do tend to lead you to a very Catholic viewpoint. Which actually is one “surprise” I found during the RCIA process. What I had come to hold as my personal theology from reading the NIV extensively what acutally what the Catholic Church teaches!🤷 It was also one reason for my leaving the Assemblies. I would read the Bible, then some preacher would say something on the passage and my thought would be, “but that’s not what it says!”

To this day, there are still a couple of verses I prefer from the NIV. Most notably is 2 Timothy 4:7. In the NABRE it reads, “I have competed well; I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”

In the NIV the same verse reads, “I have fought the good fight; I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.” I know it’s only one word difference, but, in my Christian life I haven’t competed, well or otherwise. I have fought.😃
Kris
 
klm120861 said:
Having studied to be a pastor in a denomination where the preferred Bible was the NIV, I’d just like to say this: at least in the editions from the '90’s, I have found very little difference between the NIV and the NABRE, which I now use because it is the translation used at Mass, and when I write I want to use the translation the “average joe” is familiar with. Also, at least in the older versions of the NIV, the footnotes and such do tend to lead you to a very Catholic viewpoint. Which actually is one “surprise” I found during the RCIA process. What I had come to hold as my personal theology from reading the NIV extensively what acutally what the Catholic Church teaches!🤷 It was also one reason for my leaving the Assemblies. I would read the Bible, then some preacher would say something on the passage and my thought would be, “but that’s not what it says!”

To this day, there are still a couple of verses I prefer from the NIV. Most notably is 2 Timothy 4:7. In the NABRE it reads, “I have competed well; I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”

In the NIV the same verse reads, “I have fought the good fight; I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.” I know it’s only one word difference, but, in my Christian life I haven’t competed, well or otherwise. I have fought.😃
Kris
Click to expand...
I recently bought a NABRE, only to say that I had one. I certainly do not favor it, or the NAB that it is based on. They are OK, but frankly, it is easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a King James Version.
 
po18guy said:
Off the top of my head: In the KJV and many other ancient translations back to the Vulgate, 2 Cor 2:10 attests that Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ. The reformers agtreed with this. The NIV (and many other modern translations) says in the “presence” of Christ. How do we forgive outside of Christ’s presence? Jerome translated it as in persona Christi.

Luke 24:35 The disciples on the road to Emmaus. Traditional translations have those two recognizing Jesus “in the breaking of the bread”, tying JEsus explicitly to the bread. The NIV ‘simples’ that down to “when he broke the bread”, making the connection appear almost coincidental in nature. Naturally, it reduces or eliminates the Eucharistic aspect from the event. Small changes, but the NIV is replete with such alterations and simplifications.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, most Catholic Bibles (RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, JB, NJB, NAB, NAB-RE) all have “presence” rather than “person”. It’s a matter of scholarly opinion. While “person” is probably the most ancient tradition (and is found in the Douay-Rheims), this isn’t a fatal flaw.

I think the problem is more with the footnotes to the NIV than with the actual text. Now, if you want a really, really bad Bible translation that goes directly to “God is my buddy, Jesus is my BFF”, then you’re talking about the Good News Bible, which is truly “kindergarten theology” of the most execrable variety. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top