NIV verses Catholic Bible

[Waynec]

Hi,

Is there any literal difference between the NIV and a Catholic bible in the NT?

I thought I read some place that a literal rendering of a verse in the NT by the translators of the NIV made it necessary to partake in both the blood and body of Christ in order to fully partake of the Eucharist. Whereas Catholics beleive that partaking in either species is sufficient .

Does any one out there know about this or am I mistaken?

Thanks

 

[dmar198]

Hi,

Is there any literal difference between the NIV and a Catholic bible in the NT?

I thought I read some place that a literal rendering of a verse in the NT by the translators of the NIV made it necessary to partake in both the blood and body of Christ in order to fully partake of the Eucharist. Whereas Catholics beleive that partaking in either species is sufficient .

Does any one out there know about this or am I mistaken?

Thanks

I think the controversy you are referring to is connected to the verse 1 Corinthians 11:27, but I think you mistook the NIV for the KJV in terms of how they render this passage. The KJV incorrectly changes the conjunction “or” to “and” as you can see: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The NIV and the RSV correctly translate that underlined word as “or,” which makes it clear that the Lord is present Either when you eat the bread OR when you drink from the cup.

The NIV gets this one right, but it gets other stuff wrong. One passage that comes to mind is 2 Thess. 2:15. In the NAB, this is correctly translated as holding fast to Tradition. In the NIV, however, they translated it this way: “hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you.” This makes it easier for protestants to say we should go by the Bible alone without tradition, because they will say all the Apostles’ teachings are in the New Testament. The truth is that it says to hold fast to “tradition,” making it clear that we need both unwritten and written doctrines.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

 

[Waynec]

I think the controversy you are referring to is connected to the verse 1 Corinthians 11:27, but I think you mistook the NIV for the KJV in terms of how they render this passage. The KJV incorrectly changes the conjunction “or” to “and” as you can see: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The NIV and the RSV correctly translate that underlined word as “or,” which makes it clear that the Lord is present Either when you eat the bread OR when you drink from the cup.

The NIV gets this one right, but it gets other stuff wrong. One passage that comes to mind is 2 Thess. 2:15. In the NAB, this is correctly translated as holding fast to Tradition. In the NIV, however, they translated it this way: “hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you.” This makes it easier for protestants to say we should go by the Bible alone without tradition, because they will say all the Apostles’ teachings are in the New Testament. The truth is that it says to hold fast to “tradition,” making it clear that we need both unwritten and written doctrines.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Hatikvah]

Personally, I never use the NIV. I’m not a KJV-onlyist or something (that whole position is illogical). There are a great many inaccuracies as opposed to other Bibles with the NIV. Not only that, but it is published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishing, which also publishes the Satanic Bible and the a popular homosexual book with a pretty explicit title. I’m not kidding…

The NIV is intended “not to offend” people, so it uses euphemisms. I found only two sources with seemingly reliable information on the NIV, a Baptist source (PDF) and a mainstream Protestant source.

For example, here is a comparison of KJV vs NIV for Luke 9:56:

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:56, KJV)

Then he and his disciples went to another village. (Luke 9:56, NIV)

Now, I think that the righteous wrath of Christ, Who is God, is a pretty important part of the Bible, don’t you think? And I doubt that some scribe long ago just “forgot” about that part in his manuscript. YLT also includes it, and that’s one of the closest to the manuscripts.

I also used Bible Gateway to verify, so this has double attestation. The second source has even more examples of bad NIV writing.

 

[Waynec]

Personally, I never use the NIV. I’m not a KJV-onlyist or something (that whole position is illogical). There are a great many inaccuracies as opposed to other Bibles with the NIV. Not only that, but it is published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishing, which also publishes the Satanic Bible and the a popular homosexual book with a pretty explicit title. I’m not kidding…

The NIV is intended “not to offend” people, so it uses euphemisms. I found only two sources with seemingly reliable information on the NIV, a Baptist source (PDF) and a mainstream Protestant source.

For example, here is a comparison of KJV vs NIV for Luke 9:56:

Now, I think that the righteous wrath of Christ, Who is God, is a pretty important part of the Bible, don’t you think? And I doubt that some scribe long ago just “forgot” about that part in his manuscript. YLT also includes it, and that’s one of the closest to the manuscripts.

I also used Bible Gateway to verify, so this has double attestation. The second source has even more examples of bad NIV writing.

I just had a chance to look at these 2 sites. They look very interesting. I plan on reading them both.

A Catholic priest recommended the NIV to my sister. What was he thinking? I use the DR and Jerusalem bibles.

Thanks
Thanks
I plan on reading them both.

 

[fred_conty]

I just had a chance to look at these 2 sites. They look very interesting. I plan on reading them both.

A Catholic priest recommended the NIV to my sister. What was he thinking? I use the DR and Jerusalem bibles.

Thanks
Thanks
I plan on reading them both.

The NIV has more in it than just the bible. There are items of interest in Jewish culture, backgrounds of cities, indexes of various sorts, maps, references to persons, and so on.

 

[Waynec]

The NIV has more in it than just the bible. There are items of interest in Jewish culture, backgrounds of cities, indexes of various sorts, maps, references to persons, and so on.

True, then the priest should have warned her of the faulty text. I certainly would not, as a Catholic, use it as a study bible.

 

[sirach2v4]

The NIV is a paraphrased translation, as I take it the NAB is, too.

I sometimes wish I could have studied the Biblical languages directly. I never hear about Catholics doing that. I don’t know if I’ve met a Catholic priest who has done that, although the Church encourages the direct study of the original languages. Fr. Mitch Pacwa comes to mind as knowing the Biblical languages.

Every translation of the Bible is copyrighted, so translators have to doh-see-doh around to avoid violating copyright laws in coming up with a new translation. It’s not always possible to translate some verses differently, when the original language is unambiguous about the wording. But, if you look at six or seven translations of a verse, you might find as I did, that a particular translation may change the meaning of a verse completely.

for reading the Old Testament, I make sure my Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (English) is close by, for comparison.

 

[Waynec]

The NIV is a paraphrased translation, as I take it the NAB is, too.

I sometimes wish I could have studied the Biblical languages directly. I never hear about Catholics doing that. I don’t know if I’ve met a Catholic priest who has done that, although the Church encourages the direct study of the original languages. Fr. Mitch Pacwa comes to mind as knowing the Biblical languages.

I’ll ask the priest when I see him Sunday. I wonder if studying Latin is a requirement any more? I’ll ask him that too.

Every translation of the Bible is copyrighted, so translators have to doh-see-doh around to avoid violating copyright laws in coming up with a new translation. It’s not always possible to translate some verses differently, when the original language is unambiguous about the wording. But, if you look at six or seven translations of a verse, you might find as I did, that a particular translation may change the meaning of a verse completely.

Yes, the NIV and the NWT

for reading the Old Testament, I make sure my Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (English) is close by, for comparison.

I have one of the above also. I find reading their commentary especially interesting considering they don’t beleive in Jesus the way we do.