Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

[Contarini]

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)

How is the NAB closer to the KJV? You may be right but that wouldn’t be my impression–I think it depends on what you look at. (Are you perhaps confusing the NASB with the NAB? They are completely different translations of opposite character–the NASB is extremely literal, while the NAB, like the NIV, takes a “dynamic equivalence” approach for the most part.)

The NIV is readable, and its theological presuppositions are those common to American evangelicalism for the most part. It’s a very “comfortable” translation. A dynamic equivalance translation–which most linguists favor, by the way–embeds a lot of interpretation in the translation. That’s why I think that for Biblical purposes (particularly from a Protestant perspective) a more “formal equivalence” approach is better, even though when translating a “normal” literary text I’d probably take the opposite approach.

A “formal equivalence” approach preserves much of the ambiguity of the original. A “dynamic equivalence” approach makes choices. The NIV’s choices are those you would expect from conservative evangelicals dominated (as the American evangelical intelligentsia mostly is) by a broadly Reformed perspective.

Edwin

 

[MartinJordan]

Im not directly answering the OP but wish to comment and inquire as follows:

I use the NIV for a quick reference in particular for the NT (on google search - and that because usually it is the first Bible sample given for a respective verse). I don’t find much problems with it to be quite frank.

However, I always wonder why in Deuteronomy 28:4 they render the Greek translation as “The fruit of your womb will be blessed” but when it comes to Luke 1:42 the Greek is transliterated to “Blessed is the child you will bear”, when it is “Blessed is the fruit of your womb” which is the correct transliteration.

If NIV has no problem keeping D28:4 accurate despite the “old style”, why is it changed in Luke 1:42?

Perhaps someone can clarify.

MJ

 

[hn160]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the ESV for its new Study Bible. Our theologians have problems with the NIVB.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the ESV for its new Study Bible. Our theologians have problems with the NIVB.

That’s probably beacuse it was translated by Evangelicals. I think it is nicely translated and reads well, but I don’t use it for anything but comparison to a more orthodox translation.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

For ease of reading, nothing beats the New Living Translation.

If you ever have trouble understanding a passage, just go look it up in the NLT.

 

[billt9]

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)

well, many Protestants realize that the KJV is antiquated as to modern English and not based on some very old manuscripts now known (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, papyri), so we welcome a new, more accurate to the original autographs than the KJV. As to which “modern” translation we use, many Protestants, including me, believe the NIV translators are more conservative – traditional --orthodox (whatever term you prefer) than some of the other recent translators

 

[BrianGular]

However, I always wonder why in Deuteronomy 28:4 they render the Greek translation as “The fruit of your womb will be blessed” but when it comes to Luke 1:42 the Greek is transliterated to “Blessed is the child you will bear”, when it is “Blessed is the fruit of your womb” which is the correct transliteration.

Both the Hebrew in Deut 28:4 and the Greek in Luke 1:42 use words that are translated literally to English as “fruit”. In context, however, both phrases are referring to “fruit of the body/belly/womb”, so “fruit” is being used figuratively in both places to refer to human offspring. Whether to render it “fruit” or “child” is a matter of style, in my opinion.

 

[BrianGular]

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

I would say that the current “popular” translation in the Protestant community is the English Standard Version (ESV). NIV continues to fly off the shelves, but ESV has taken a bit of the spotlight. The ESV Study Bible has an aura of “serious study” about it.

The differences between versions are usually well represented by notes in the pages that precede the biblical text. I find these pages fascinating to read. They reveal that the difference in translations is usually a matter of emphasis. Here’s a simple rule of thumb that I use:

NASB = word-for-word translation. There are a few places, such as in Romans, where the translators held so tightly to their emphasis that I’m not sure it’s actually proper English. Now, there isn’t always a direct, word-for-word translation from Hebrew or Greek to English, but the goal of these translators was to adhere as closely as possible to the original text. In my opinion, the NASB is the most reliable of the Protestant translations because this adherence to the text reduces the possibility of reading one’s theology into the translation.

NIV = thought-for-thought translation. With an eye toward producing an accurate translation that is a bit easier to read, this group of translators sought to focus on thoughts and ideas in the text rather than on the specific words. That sounds funny now that I’ve written it. Of course the translators focused on the specific words, but as they translated they chose a bit of a “higher level” than that used by the NASB crowd.

TLB = paraphrase translation. This one is extremely easy to read, kind of fun actually. But I wouldn’t be able to use it to defend serious doctrinal positions. That isn’t what it is for. The translators were going for something more like reading a novel or a history book.

None of these translations are bad. They simply deliver different things for different kinds of readers.

In a radio interview that I heard while driving home from work one day, a biblical scholar said that the best way to study the Bible is to read the original languages, but because most of us won’t be able to do that he suggested that the second-best plan is to read the same passage in a few translations. He believed that reading a few translations gets us closer to the sense of the original language than studying a single translation.

 

[Estevao]

The NIV is tainted for me. The first church I went to in college before coming back to the Catholic church (baptized but not catechized), solely used the NIV.

I had been reading the KJV, which got me interested in Christianity, and when they recruited me to start attending their church and going through their bible study series, I still tried to use the KJV in bible study, but they made me feel like an outcast for not using the NIV. They weren’t interested in more context from other translations. When a church only uses one translation like this, it should be a warning sign. But I was naive and a little too trusting.

It turned out this church had a history of cult-like operations, thanks in good part to this sole use of this one translation, from which they derived many disturbing teachings. (If you want a read on how these studies played out, in a cult-like manner: reveal.org/library/theology/dandersn2.html)

As of now, I wouldn’t say that it was still a cult overall, as it was back when that write-up was written (late 1990s), when they were under the leadership of a megalomanic, but the person who led me through the bible study was a hang-over from the era, and I went through a similar experience as that write-up details. Lots of isolation, pressure, breaking down and guilt-tripping, and they even got me to allow myself to be baptized again, before I found out the history of this church (and of infant baptism) and I left.

Anyway, they made good use of the NIV’s translations to promote the typical fundamentalist way of looking at catholicism. They operate at a lot at college campuses and there you find many lapsed catholics. So when, early on in the study, they talk about the “human traditions”, as the NIV renders it, in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, they get the studier to agree to renounce any “religious traditions” that they may have, and only go with the word of God. It is implied that this is for catholic teachings or any other church with “traditions” (i.e. every church except theirs).

Evangelization was very strongly emphasized in this church. The NIV’s rendering of Matthew 28:19, “make disciples”, they take to be a command for each and every member to become an evangelist and to make more disciples themselves. Not that I don’t like evangelization, but some people aren’t cut out for the way that they require their members (especially the college student ones) to be evangelists.

They were still on the whole a very kind and generous congregation, except they should really focus on some ecumenism with other denominations.

 

[Shannon46]

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)

First of all, most Protestant Churches such as Seventh Day Adventist uses NIV Bible although I’m a unhappy with the way a Protestant Church teaches things about the New International Bible.

 

[Contarini]

T
Anyway, they made good use of the NIV’s translations to promote the typical fundamentalist way of looking at catholicism. They operate at a lot at college campuses and there you find many lapsed catholics. So when, early on in the study, they talk about the “human traditions”, as the NIV renders it, in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, they get the studier to agree to renounce any “religious traditions” that they may have, and only go with the word of God. It is implied that this is for catholic teachings or any other church with “traditions” (i.e. every church except theirs).

Yes, one of the more disturbing translation choices in the NIV (from a Catholic perspective) was the choice to translate “paradosis” as “tradition” when it’s used negatively, but “teaching” when used positively (though to be fair they did have a footnote in the latter case acknowledging “tradition” as an alternative translation).

Edwin