Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Peter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eric_Peter

Guest
This is not a flame bait thread.
I’m just curious what are the things that non-Catholics like New International Version so much.

When I was reading it, I found some verses to be completely out from the original meaning. Then I thought it was because it’s Protestant’s Bible that it’s normal to have different meaning from the Catholics. But before I conclude it, I do some quick research, on “NKJV, KJV and Young Literal Translation”. Compared it, and found even other bible are closer to Catholic’s Bible, if not the same. I do not know how “literal” is the Young Literal version but I assume it’s direct word by word translation.

And then I came across to a website, a person is giving Bible ‘marks’ for their translations.
This person gave New American Bible 60%.
New International Version gets 90%.
KJV and NKJV get 100%.

And it really starts to puzzle me, what is the thing that some like NIV so much that even NAB gets lower mark, when NAB comes closer to KJV? (Just my opinions, I might be wrong)
 
Eric_Peter said:
This is not a flame bait thread.
I’m just curious what are the things that non-Catholics like New International Version so much.

When I was reading it, I found some verses to be completely out from the original meaning. Then I thought it was because it’s Protestant’s Bible that it’s normal to have different meaning from the Catholics. But before I conclude it, I do some quick research, on “NKJV, KJV and Young Literal Translation”. Compared it, and found even other bible are closer to Catholic’s Bible, if not the same. I do not know how “literal” is the Young Literal version but I assume it’s direct word by word translation.

And then I came across to a website, a person is giving Bible ‘marks’ for their translations.
This person gave New American Bible 60%.
New International Version gets 90%.
KJV and NKJV get 100%.

And it really starts to puzzle me, what is the thing that some like NIV so much that even NAB gets lower mark, when NAB comes closer to KJV? (Just my opinions, I might be wrong)
Click to expand...
I am assuming it is easier to read?
 
Ah thanks.

by the way here’s the website.

compassdistributors.ca/topics/compare.htm

I know she doesn’t talk for all non-Catholics, but it seems NIV is very popular among them.

wait. ok. just found she’s quite anti-catholic. even labelled Latin Vulgate as heretics.
 
Eric_Peter said:
Ah thanks.

by the way here’s the website.

compassdistributors.ca/topics/compare.htm

I know she doesn’t talk for all non-Catholics, but it seems NIV is very popular among them.

wait. ok. just found she’s quite anti-catholic. even labelled Latin Vulgate as heretics.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I could careless about her OPINIONS. I would put a lot more weight on Jerome than some woman living 2,000 years after Jesus.
 
Hi there!

This is actually my first post, so woo-hoo! lol 😛
Actually, I’ve found that it really depends on the denomination and church. I much prefer the NASB because it is considered to be the most literal and accurate translation (among the Protestant Bibles), however, I do find the NIV to be a nice translation to use during Bible study. It’s a little easier to read on occasion, so that probably contributes to popularity…I assume. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod tends to rely heavily on the ESV over the NIV. In fact, I don’t know if my church has ever read from NIV. I’ve been to Baptist and Nazarene churches while visiting with family, and they do both seem to favor NIV or NKJV. So, like I said, I think it depends on what a person’s church uses the most during service that influences what their preference might be…but NIV is rather easy to read. 🙂

Peace and Blessings!
Julie
 
Actually, I quite like the NIV and wish they would publish a Catholic Edition. This however, will never happen. They’ve even stated on their website that they have no plans in the foreseeable future to translate the deuterocanon.
 
Some Protestants prefer the NIV. But almost everyone I know is partial to the NASB or the ESV.

In the big picture, it doesn’t matter. Almost ALL Bibles are now based on the Nestle-Aland group of manuscripts.
 
The NIV seemed to have a more contemporary way of phrasing the translation. I used to like it because it had a modern feel and I had a study Bible version; there were lots of notes and cross-references, similar to a concordance. Now, though, I can see it isn’t a safe translation. The Catholic Edition RSV is the best translation I’ve come across, and it is now the one I use. I’ve read somewhere Ignatius Press has published a new study Bible. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve heard it is very good.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
How come?

God bless
Click to expand...
Thank you.
The main reason is the NIV does not include certain passages. It is the majority versus minority text argument. It uses older transcripts (ie that we can actually read or see) but ones that we consider unreliable and coming from what we believe is an inferior textual stream.
 
Aidan12 said:
The NIV seemed to have a more contemporary way of phrasing the translation. I used to like it because it had a modern feel and I had a study Bible version; there were lots of notes and cross-references, similar to a concordance. Now, though, I can see it isn’t a safe translation. The Catholic Edition RSV is the best translation I’ve come across, and it is now the one I use. I’ve read somewhere Ignatius Press has published a new study Bible. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve heard it is very good.
Click to expand...
I agree on all counts. The Catholic RSV by Ignatius is my version that I keep on the nightstand. I have the Jerusalem and the Catholic New American Study Version, but I prefer the RSV.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Thank you.
The main reason is the NIV does not include certain passages. It is the majority versus minority text argument. It uses older transcripts (ie that we can actually read or see) but ones that we consider unreliable and coming from what we believe is an inferior textual stream.
Click to expand...
What passages are you talking about it missing?

And what do you mean about it using manuscripts (I assume that’s what you meant) that are less reliable? It uses as its base the critical texts that are pretty standard.
 
I like the NIV a lot. Plus I have a great audio-Bible in TNIV!

But, I prefer the WEB version because it is completely free. I do not think the Bible should come with a price tag, or even a copy write notice.
 
I like the NIV mostly because it is what I am acustomed to. This is the version that we read from and memorized verses from when I was a child. When I try to search for a verse, sometimes I can just remember a phrase. Its easier for me to find the verse in the NIV because the phrase matches my memory. When I look for it in the NASB or KJV sometimes the wording is just different enough that it is difficult to find.

This is also the version that was read from the pulpit in my childhood church. It is nice in many ways to have the same version in your lap that the preacher is reading from.

I also think it is easier to read. When I read the NASB I sometimes have to read and re-read a passage. It just seems like the ideas dont’ flow as nicely. I assume this is becuase the NIV is a phrase-translation instead of a word-translation.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Thank you.
The main reason is the NIV does not include certain passages. It is the majority versus minority text argument. It uses older transcripts (ie that we can actually read or see) but ones that we consider unreliable and coming from what we believe is an inferior textual stream.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. Just out of curiosity what are some examples of passages that are not included in the NIV? Also who do you mean by “we”?

A question to all posters; is there a NIV only following out there like there is a KJV only following?

God bless
 
T_More said:
I agree on all counts. The Catholic RSV by Ignatius is my version that I keep on the nightstand. I have the Jerusalem and the Catholic New American Study Version, but I prefer the RSV.
Click to expand...
I am a converted Catholic, who has recently reconciled after many, many lost years. I am going Bible shopping within the next few days, and I want the Catholic Bible this time. Please tell me what the “RSV” letters stand for.

Thanks!
 
Sylvan said:
I am a converted Catholic, who has recently reconciled after many, many lost years. I am going Bible shopping within the next few days, and I want the Catholic Bible this time. Please tell me what the “RSV” letters stand for.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
It’s the Revised Standard Version. There is a Catholic edition of it that is abbreviated RSV-CE (clever arn’t we 😉 ). It is my primary Bible that I use. If memory serves me correctly it is also the one the Scott Hahn uses for his Bible study series.

God bless and welcome to the forums
 
Nine_Two said:
What passages are you talking about it missing?

And what do you mean about it using manuscripts (I assume that’s what you meant) that are less reliable? It uses as its base the critical texts that are pretty standard.
Click to expand...
I only provide the link to answer your question about passages.
bereancall.org/newsletters/foundations.htm

Yes manuscripts. Goodness, that was a mess up. One of many reasons we consider the critical texts to be unreliable is the vast amount of differences between the primary texts used.
In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
Click to expand...
On page 319 of he remarks, “In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top