The NIV Study Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyril_Of_Canada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cyril_Of_Canada

Guest
I know you guys don’t need to rely on an NIV Study Bible. I heard it was a good Protestant study bible, so I picked one up for cheap at Amazon and found it seriously lacking even though it has a lot of flashy things in it, like pictures, maps and concordances. I don’t really enjoy relying on it for interpreting scripture, but I can imagine a Protestant that doesn’t care much for Catholicism would think it is amazing.
 
If you have reasonably known your Catholic stuff, the NIV study Bible would be good companion for life application of the scripture. I have a copy and I thought they did very well in their commentary especially giving views about what the verses entail.

I am open to it because there are some good stuff there for sharings and understanding the verses. One however should use it as a second opinion to compliment the Catholic Bibles that one has.

I have no problem with it and in many ways find the reflections useful especially when I am lazy to do one of my own.
 
For several years I used NIV, and I could not find any substantial differences, except for the missing books, which rarely if ever impacted my Bible reading and studies.

Then I stumbled across a nice NABRE “Student Bible” (standard NABRE with an additional section of catechism Q&A for teens and other students) for $1 at a thrift shop. So now I have a totally Catholic Bible, and I use it exclusively… but I still think NIV is fine.
 
While I do like the NIV for ease of reading and for certain quotes, I do favor
the RVSV Catholic Bible 1957 translation for most things.
One thing I love to read, is ‘Hail Mary, full of grace’ from Luke 1:28.
Many heart felt Biblical Scholars agree that its the best
translation of Kecharitomene, which is a verb used as a noun
in the perfect passive tense.

The author of the following web page sometimes uses the NIV,
but points out some difficulties in the translation. Note that
I used an NIV once that at least had a theological aside with
an asterisk, next to ‘teachings.’ The annotation was, ‘* or traditions.’

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/bible/niv-bias-by-steve-ray/

Peace.
 
PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Hiding the condemnation of personal interpretation

2 Peter 1:20
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. (NIV adds “the prophet’s”)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (New American Standard)

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (New American Bible)

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for sola scriptura is 2 Peter 1:20-21. That’s hardly surprising. In this passage, Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then Peter warns: “But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teacher among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Note that under divine inspiration, Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

The Greek word that is translated as “heresies” comes from the verb haireomai, which means “to take or to choose for one’s self.” In the first century, it had the negative meaning of going off on one’s own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14, some translations render it as “sect”.

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to the idea of sola scriptura that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus, it appears that the New International Version (NIV) intentionally mistranslates “one’s own interpretation” with “by the prophet’s own interpretation.” However, tou prophetou is not found in the Greek text.

Avoiding Positive References to “Tradition”

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:

paradosis - tradition
didaskalia - teaching
didachi i - teaching doctrine

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “tradition”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a negative light.

Matthew 15:1-5
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition [paradosis] of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition [paradosis]? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition [paradosis].”

Mark 7:1-13
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition [paradosis] of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition [paradosis] of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions [paradosis] of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions [paradosis]! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition [paradosis] that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Galatians 1:14
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the tradition [paradosis] of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

(cont.)
 
In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “teaching”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a positive light.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teaching [paradosis], just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching [paradosis] you received from us.

Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word “paradosis” correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, “paradosis”. The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

I understand that Protestant Bibles are incomplete (since they are missing seven canonical books), but it appears that at least one of the major Protestant translations is biased, as well!
 
In Persona Christi

The Douay-Rheims and King James Versions provide powerful backing for the Catholic doctrine of confession to a priest.

The passage is found in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and hinges upon the translation of the Greek word, prosopon. Here is the passage as seen in context in three major translations.

Douay-Rheims
“For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

King James Version
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

New International Version
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake

While the first two translations each contain the words “in the person of Christ” or in persona Christi, the modern Protestant translation carefully avoids this phrase. Why is this important?

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase which translates literally as “in the person of Christ.” This is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church referring to the action of a priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.

In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. “This is my body.” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are chief examples.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi

Is this another example of the anti-Catholic bias of the NIV? Or has the NIV, like the NAB and RSV-CE, captured the phrase more accurately?

Works “Missing” in James 2

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18 NIV)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. (James 2:14-18 Douay-Rheims)
 
Ah, the Non Inspired Version.
The study notes are thoroughly Protestant with no Patristic commentary at all. It is readable, but there are much better options out there to choose from.
 
Beryllos said:
For several years I used NIV, and I could not find any substantial differences, except for the missing books, which rarely if ever impacted my Bible reading and studies.

Then I stumbled across a nice NABRE “Student Bible” (standard NABRE with an additional section of catechism Q&A for teens and other students) for $1 at a thrift shop. So now I have a totally Catholic Bible, and I use it exclusively… but I still think NIV is fine.
Click to expand...
jimmyakin.com/choosing-a-bible-translation

The note in the NABRE are more problematic than a full on Protestant Study Bible like the NIV!

jimmyakin.com/2005/01/the_new_america.html
 
Hi guys.
I* really* don’t like this study bible. I looked at the study notes on essential verses on Baptism, “Brethren” Of Jesus, Eucharist, Authority given to the apostles to forgive sins, The Rebirth for starters:

Baptism is merely a symbol; The “natural” interpretation is that Jesus had half-brothers born to Mary and Joseph after he had been born; The Eucharist is a symbol and they make it a point that it is not to be a ritual meant to be taken literally(an indirect stab at Catholics obviously); “Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood” is not literal and only symbolic and to point towards what Jesus did on the cross by shedding his blood; The Rebirth by water refers to being born naturally from a sac, and to me, a big kicker was the fact that the authority bestowed upon the apostles after Jesus rose from the dead wasn’t about them but was about all believers in general when it came to forgiving sins that had already been forgiven.

I’ve read in this thread and another thread on Catholic Answers Forums that speak highly of the NIV, but as a Protestant with a INFP-T personality who desperately wants to cross the Tiber and has to deal with Protestants that believe in this stuff, it really frustrates me and irritates me. If it weren’t for appologetics, I’d think this book was not only a waste of money but a waste of time to even read. It just serves to reinforce what Protestants already think and their misunderstanding about Catholic doctrines and dogma.
 
To the OP. It’s alright you do not like it. More importantly you know what you do not like.

It’s obviously not a Catholic bible so expect the differences on such teaching. I would not use it for such purpose.

As for me, like I said, I do not have problem with it because I know what it is. But there can be other use for it even if it is just to know the differences. Thus I take what is useful in it, and frankly it is rather user friendly, so it’s convenient to get quick information especially for reflection on certain passages and verses.

A bit of caution though, it’s perhaps good for people like me who can discern on what is useful without damning your own belief but probably not for beginners if they do not know the difference.

I have a large collection of Bibles and know which one is which. I use them for comparison and may decide to pick out verses due to the language which I deem appropriate for specific teaching or giving talk or writing, that would bring out my thought better.

There are some practical thought on life application - doesn’t matter whether the writers were Protestants but if they can compliment what you have, it’s always a plus, an advantage.

The NIV comes with convenient commentaries both in its application and study version. Wish there are more such materials by our own Catholic scholars.

Similarly in the internet, BibleGateway is convenient tool too to look for passages and Biblical verses.

We can make use with what is available but it’s depends on the individual whether it’s useful or not to him/her or whether much can be used from them.
 
Reuben_J said:
The NIV comes with convenient commentaries both in its application and study version. Wish there are more such materials by our own Catholic scholars.
.
Click to expand...
Brother, have you ever had a look at the Ignatius and Didache Study Bibles. I tell you, those two are truly amazing that the difference between the NIV Study Bible and them is striking. The Ignatius and Didache study bibles also have commentaries.

I recently conducted research into a particular passage of the bible that someone I knew said was difficult for him to understand. I matched up what the Early Church Father’s said about the passage in mind with the study notes from the Didache and Ignatius Study Bibles with the NIV and John McArthur Study Bible and what a certain catholic apologist said. I haven’t heard back from him yet—but I hope that God will grant him the grace by the power of the Holy Spirit to side with the Catholic interpretations of the passage and that the opportunity will enable him to crave more wisdom from the Catholic perspective on other difficult passages of scripture—or scripture in general.

The NIV talks like a bible not certain about what it should believe and leaves it open for the viewer to decide based on personal interpretation (i.e. The passage suggests this or it COULD mean this) while the catholic study bibles tell you with authority in an intelligent way how it is and what it is.

👍

Man, o man, I wish I crossed the Tiber. I’m envious of you cradle catholics and converts. Hopefully one day I’ll get there.
 
Cyril_Of_Canada said:
Brother, have you ever had a look at the Ignatius and Didache Study Bibles. I tell you, those two are truly amazing that the difference between the NIV Study Bible and them is striking. The Ignatius and Didache study bibles also have commentaries.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the recommendation. Honestly I do not have them in my collection. I do not keep many study Bibles because of their sizes. The NIV is readily available in bookstores and they come in big fonts and binding. I got them mainly for their simple modern English but like you said, it is their drawback too. So it is mainly for the ideas that I could use, you know, it get in handy during discussion or sharing or when you are presenting something.

Do not read that much now and then internet is more convenient but alas it kills the reading habit (of books, that is).

I am a sucker for collections. Used to travel a lot and bookstores were my favorites hideaway; always came back with Bibles, mainly as souvenirs from different places. I may just pick them on one of those trips but as it is now, many are starting to collect dust in the book shelf.

God bless you.
 
Reuben_J said:
Thanks for the recommendation. Honestly I do not have them in my collection. I do not keep many study Bibles because of their sizes. The NIV is readily available in bookstores and they come in big fonts and binding. I got them mainly for their simple modern English but like you said, it is their drawback too. So it is mainly for the ideas that I could use, you know, it get in handy during discussion or sharing or when you are presenting something.

Do not read that much now and then internet is more convenient but alas it kills the reading habit (of books, that is).

I am a sucker for collections. Used to travel a lot and bookstores were my favorites hideaway; always came back with Bibles, mainly as souvenirs from different places. I may just pick them on one of those trips but as it is now, many are starting to collect dust in the book shelf.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
Man o man, you GOTTA have them, like seriously. Eating them will feel a lot like reading cake----er, I mean, reading them will feel a lot like eating cake 👍👍
I’ll post some sample:

HEBREWS 3:1
Hebrews 3:1 “Therefore holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.”
“Therefore, holy bretheren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.”(RSV)

Didache Bible:
3:1-6: Just *** Moses led the Jewish people out of bondage in Egypt and transmitted God’s Commandments to them, Christ, the New Moses, liberated the new People of God from the slavery of sin and gave them the New Law of grace and charity. Here and elsewhere in Scripture, the People of God is compared to a house or building. While the heart of Jewish worship was the Temple, the New Temple is Chrfist’s Mystical Body, which has the sanctifying power of the Sacraments. Holy bretheren: This expression acknowledges both the holiness and the familialities of the faithful Christian community. In other Epistles, the faithful are referred to as “saints.” In Baptism, a person receives sanctifying grace and is called to a life of holiness. Apostle: From the Greek apostolos, meaning “one who is sent,” the term is uniquely applied here to Christ, who was sent by the Father. (CCC 62-64, 72-72).

Ignatius Study Bible:
3:1-5:10 The next section of the letter develops the description of Christ introduced in 2:17, showing him to be a “faithful” (3:1-4) and merciful high priest (4:14-5:10).
3:1 holy bretheren: Believers are “holy” because they are sanctified (2:11) and “bretheren” because they share in the Sonship of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity (2:14,17). A heavenly call: A summons that comes from heaven (Phil 3:14). The apostle: I.e., the One sent by God. This is the only time the NT gives this title to Christ , though the notion that Jesus is the One sent into the world by the Father is expressed in other terms (Mt 10:40; Lk 10:16; Jn 3:17, ect.).

NIV Study Bible:
3:1 holy. See note on 1Co 1:2. brothers and sisters. See NIV text note on 2:11. share in the heavenly calling. That is, participate (see note on v. 14) in the invitation to enter into and enjoy the presence of God (see 11:16; 12:22 and notes). apostle. Means “one who is sent” (see note on Mk 6:30). Jesus repeatedly spoke of himself as having been sent into the world by the Father (e.g., Mt 10:40; 15:24; Mk 9:37; Lk 9:48; Jn 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36; 6:38). He is the supreme apostle, the one from whom all other apostleship flows. high priest. See note on 2:17.
 
Beryllos said:
For several years I used NIV, and I could not find any substantial differences, except for the missing books, which rarely if ever impacted my Bible reading and studies…
Click to expand...
Friends, Scholars, I stand corrected. I am pleased that there are people like you going over the translations and looking after their accuracy.

In my defense, I would only say it’s like my coffee. I appreciate Peet’s or Starbucks but I’ll have McDonald’s or even Folgers Instant as long as it’s strong.

Good morning! :coffee:
 
The NIV 1984 is waaaay better than the 2011 or anything in between. The 1984 is not even published anymore as so called “better” versions have come into being…Do not be deceived about the newer ones that are merely an attempt so soften the gospel and become more “politically correct”… as with other protestant bibles it does not include the apocrypha. The 1984 can still be bought at Christian Book Distributors online and a few other places that still have stock, but when it’s gone it’s gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top