Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

[PLeeD]

I used the NIV almost exclusively for years because A) it is easy to read, and B) there happened to be a copy in our house.

There have recently been several instances where I’ve arrived at a certain understanding of scripture based on the NIV, but after checking other translations found that understanding flawed. Because of that, I’ve abandoned the NIV completely. If I can’t trust it I’m not going to use it.

I’ve switched to the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which is supposed to be the most recent completely new English translation. So far I like it OK. It seems to be accurate. It’s easy to read. I will say it doesn’t flow quite as well and isn’t as ‘pretty’ as the NIV, but I’ll take accuracy over style any day.

 

[jdarc]

Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.

The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not.

Luther translated the New Testament into German to make it more accessible to the commoners and to erode the influence of priests. He used the recent critical Greek edition of Erasmus, a text which was later called Textus Receptus. During his translation, he would make forays into the nearby towns and markets to hear people speak so that he could write his translation in the language of the people. It was published in 1522

Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”

Erasmus’s third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The “Three Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus “for the sake of his oath.” Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.

Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus’s corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)

Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition – and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed “corruption” of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.

Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).

Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars – even those who favour the Byzantine text – that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha,

and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I used the NIV almost exclusively for years because A) it is easy to read, and B) there happened to be a copy in our house.

There have recently been several instances where I’ve arrived at a certain understanding of scripture based on the NIV, but after checking other translations found that understanding flawed. Because of that, I’ve abandoned the NIV completely. If I can’t trust it I’m not going to use it.

I’ve switched to the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which is supposed to be the most recent completely new English translation. So far I like it OK. It seems to be accurate. It’s easy to read. I will say it doesn’t flow quite as well and isn’t as ‘pretty’ as the NIV, but I’ll take accuracy over style any day.

I’m not particularly sympathetic to Baptists and certainly haven’t looked at the HCSB in any depth, but so far I have found that the HCSB avoids many of the problems that have plagued the NIV.

 

[Edson]

johnankerberg.org/catalog/BBT.html

I bought a copy and this mostly sums up the protestant versions. They cant even agree upon each other. NIV is one of many protestant Bible versions.

 

[PLeeD]

I’m not particularly sympathetic to Baptists and certainly haven’t looked at the HCSB in any depth, but so far I have found that the HCSB avoids many of the problems that have plagued the NIV.

My understanding is that the involvement of the baptists stems completely from financial concerns, and that the translation was not compromised in any way to cater to baptist doctrine.

The financial concerns stem from the baptists using the NIV for all their official teaching material. The NIV copyright holders were reportedly charging the baptists exorbitant fees for that use. The baptists got involved with the HCSB by giving financial support to complete the translation with the understanding that they would then be able to use the HCSB instead of NIV for their material, thereby saving money that was previously going to the NIV organization.

So far I haven’t seen much in it that fails to reflect the original intent of the scripture. I have noticed a place or two where I think they took a shortcut compared to the original language text, but those are minor, and are commonly found in other translations as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I used the NIV almost exclusively for years because A) it is easy to read, and B) there happened to be a copy in our house.

There have recently been several instances where I’ve arrived at a certain understanding of scripture based on the NIV, but after checking other translations found that understanding flawed. Because of that, I’ve abandoned the NIV completely. If I can’t trust it I’m not going to use it.

I’ve switched to the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which is supposed to be the most recent completely new English translation. So far I like it OK. It seems to be accurate. It’s easy to read. I will say it doesn’t flow quite as well and isn’t as ‘pretty’ as the NIV, but I’ll take accuracy over style any day.

IMHO your honesty reachs the real point. I have several versions here. I see that some follow the “The Way” in thinking, which was written by a Catholic Saint 40-years ago. In this sense its to appeal to an easier understanding to comprehend. So, its not always the idea of placing the “best, most exact translation” into ones hands. So then the translations are also not wrong, they may be worded where they are much easier to comprehend. Yet through a slight variation in the same text may be interpreted differently.

All the Bible’s have certain verse’s which I like better than others. I can think of a few from Revelation of the top of my head. Here’ one which I love from the New American Bible translation. Well here see yourself what I’m trying to say.

Here’s the KJV for Revelation 13:10

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Here’s the Catholic New American Bible

If one is destined for captivity, into captivity he goes! If one is destined to be slain by the sword, by the sword he will be slain! Such is the faithful endurance that distinguishes God’s holy people.

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

Unfortunately the issue is not limited to protestant translations. There are examples of Catholic translations that appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original text.

 

[Publisher]

Just about every translation carries a doctrinal bias from the translator.

 

[Edson]

Unfortunately the issue is not limited to protestant translations. There are examples of Catholic translations that appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original text.

Oh please provide some examples, I am curious to know what examples of Catholic translations appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original texts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh please provide some examples, I am curious to know what examples of Catholic translations appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original texts.

Really, had that even came to my mind I would have mentioned above how the KJV aligns with Catholic Doctrine more so than the Catholic Bible with Revelation 13:10.

382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced and contain All 80 Books {39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test}.

Its pretty safe to say what you see today is a result of his work. Whats the difference between Erasmus and Luthers translation aside from language? Luther translated from the Erasmus translation?

Tyndale also used the Erasmus version:shrug:

The KJV and Geneva contain 90% of the Tyndale.

I agree with Edson. I’d have to hear this explained.

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

Oh please provide some examples, I am curious to know what examples of Catholic translations appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original texts.

Here is one that comes to mind:

New American Bible

Matthew 19:9 - I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

This translation fits neatly into the Catholic Church’s thinking on annulments. But, nearly every other translation, Catholic or not, uses words implying some form of sexual immorality. Examples from other translations:

“except it be for fornication”
“not for fornication”
“except for fornication”
“except for lewdness”
“except her unfaithfulness”
“if not for whoredom”
“unless his wife has been unfaithful”
“for any reason other than her unfaithfulness”

Yet the NAB translated it as “unless the marriage is unlawful”. Seems like meaning was imposed on the original text according to church teaching.

And before you get all anti-protestant on us, keep in mind that the Orthodox church may allow remarriage in the case of adultery based on this same verse of scripture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here is one that comes to mind:

New American Bible

Matthew 19:9 - I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

This translation fits neatly into the Catholic Church’s thinking on annulments. But, nearly every other translation, Catholic or not, uses words implying some form of sexual immorality. Examples from other translations:

“except it be for fornication”
“not for fornication”
“except for fornication”
“except for lewdness”
“except her unfaithfulness”
“if not for whoredom”
“unless his wife has been unfaithful”
“for any reason other than her unfaithfulness”

Yet the NAB translated it as “unless the marriage is unlawful”. Seems like meaning was imposed on the original text according to church teaching.

And before you get all anti-protestant on us, keep in mind that the Orthodox church may allow remarriage in the case of adultery based on this same verse of scripture.

Well geez we have a minor problem here. So how about we look at “all” the scripture verse on this topic.

And you can start here:

Matthew 5:31-32

Matthew 10:34-37

Matthew 19:3-6, 8-12

Mark 10: 2-12

Mark 12: 24-27

Luke 16:18

Use the KJV Bible, and come back, and tell how the Catholic Church version favors Catholic Doctrine on this same verse your chose

So before you get all anti Catholic on us, lets get this small point of contention clarified.

Here I"ll even get you started with Luke 16:18 of the KJV

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

I was asked to provide an example of a Catholic translation that reveals doctrinal bias. I did.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I understand this, and I also believe there are issues that Luther was right about. I don’t believe he went about change correctly.

Anyway at this point I don’t see Catholic favor, I see Sola Scriptura misinterpetation to promote a lifestyle contrary to Christian History

Nonetheless, when we speak of the family. marriage and divorce as its defined through Scripture, then the Apostles, which then coincides with the Ecumenical councils and Doctrine. How does there become favor on Catholic theology? Its all Christian theology till the Schism/Reformation.

The point which Eramsus refused to budge on was the family in Christian history. With the logical, skeptical thinking being, how could we possibly change anything here, when it has served the greater good in mankind for centurys. By default we should admit as mankind we just don’t have all the answers, then stick with the Church teaching non-dogmatically till its revealed by God.

This hasn’t happened to date as far as I know, except in the minds of man.

So is the Catholic Bible confirming what has been already defined by Christian History of favoring the CC?

I’m not missing your point.

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

Anyway at this point I don’t see Catholic favor, I see Sola Scriptura misinterpetation to promote a lifestyle contrary to Christian History

The Orthodox church holds to the same teaching on the exception for remarriage in the case of adultery as does much of protestantism. Are you accusing the Orthodox church of Sola Scriptura?

What I see in this thread is a form of pride. It’s a pride that causes some people to carry the idea that Catholic translations of the bible are free from doctrinal bias while “protestant” translations are inherently flawed. As has been pointed out, all translations are compromises. None are perfect.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

My understanding is that the involvement of the baptists stems completely from financial concerns, and that the translation was not compromised in any way to cater to baptist doctrine.

The financial concerns stem from the baptists using the NIV for all their official teaching material. The NIV copyright holders were reportedly charging the baptists exorbitant fees for that use. The baptists got involved with the HCSB by giving financial support to complete the translation with the understanding that they would then be able to use the HCSB instead of NIV for their material, thereby saving money that was previously going to the NIV organization.

So far I haven’t seen much in it that fails to reflect the original intent of the scripture. I have noticed a place or two where I think they took a shortcut compared to the original language text, but those are minor, and are commonly found in other translations as well.

Very interesting–thanks for the info!

The whole topic of who is making money from printing the Bible is fascinating in and of itself. For example, the USCCB recently decided (suddenly and unilaterally) to stop paying royalties to the Catholic Biblical Association:

ncronline.org/news/justice/us-bishops-biblical-association-dispute-over-royalties

Thus, the Catholic Biblical Association is now in a huge funding crunch; I imagine this will end up in court!

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodox church holds to the same teaching on the exception for remarriage in the case of adultery as does much of protestantism. Are you accusing the Orthodox church of Sola Scriptura?

What I see in this thread is a form of pride. It’s a pride that causes some people to carry the idea that Catholic translations of the bible are free from doctrinal bias while “protestant” translations are inherently flawed. As has been pointed out, all translations are compromises. None are perfect.

The Bishop of Rome is the “proto” as defined by the Council of Nicaea.

The Catholic Church, as far as I know, believes and teaches that the Apostolic Deposit is essentially unchanged and unchangeable. The Popes and councils can not add or take away, but they can clarify.

Throwing other Christian churchs in the mix does little to change the Truth. The Truth is Truth even if only one person believes it and everyone else thinks its wrong.

But since we talking NIV Bible as the OP suggests. Who wrote it? How much different is it than the KJV? Have you read the links out today on the “actual” differences?

You should because I believe your statement seriously downplays the difference just from KJV. Never mind Catholic Church Bible and teaching. At this point the futher a Bible drifts in authentic verse, the more dangerous it becomes, especially for those who have little regard for the Catholic Church teachings.

So really were is the Pride coming from? “So far I haven’t seen much in it that fails to reflect the original intent of the scripture”

God Bless, Gary

 

[Edson]

Here is one that comes to mind:

New American Bible

Matthew 19:9 - I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

This translation fits neatly into the Catholic Church’s thinking on annulments. But, nearly every other translation, Catholic or not, uses words implying some form of sexual immorality. Examples from other translations:

“except it be for fornication”
“not for fornication”
“except for fornication”
“except for lewdness”
“except her unfaithfulness”
“if not for whoredom”
“unless his wife has been unfaithful”
“for any reason other than her unfaithfulness”

Yet the NAB translated it as “unless the marriage is unlawful”. Seems like meaning was imposed on the original text according to church teaching.

And before you get all anti-protestant on us, keep in mind that the Orthodox church may allow remarriage in the case of adultery based on this same verse of scripture.

OK is the meaning of Mathew 19:9 lost by using the word unlawful? What makes a marriage unlawful? I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to know that unlawful here means not being faithful or any type of sexual immorality. The meaning is still conveyed to the reader when you look at the verse at face value.

 

[Anna_Scott]

In addressing the OP; I don’t find the NIV to be a particularly accurate translation, but it is very “readable,” and perhaps that is its appeal.

Comparisons between Protestant and Catholic Bible versions of Luke 3:21-22

Protestant Bible Versions:

New International Version 1984, ©1984 & New International Version, ©2011
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

International Standard Version (ISV)
Jesus Is Baptized 21 When all the people had been baptized, Jesus, too, was baptized. While he was praying, heaven opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, saying, (Footnote: The Gk. Lacks saying) “You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you!” (Footnote: Other Mss. Read You are my Son, Today I have become your Father)

English Standard Version (ESV)
21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when(A) Jesus also had been baptized and was praying,(B) the heavens were opened, 22 and(C) the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and(D) a voice came from heaven,(E) “You are my beloved Son;[a] with you I am well pleased.”** Footnotes: a. Luke 3:22 Or my Son, my (or the) Beloved; b. Luke 3:22 Some manuscripts beloved Son, today I have begotten you.

King James Version (KJV)
21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Catholic Bible versions:

Christian Community Bible (The Catholic Comparative New Testament)
Jesus is baptized by John 21 Now, with all the people who came to be baptized, Jesus too was baptized. Then, while he was praying, the heavens opened: 22 the Holy Spirit came down upon him in the bodily form of a dove and a voice from heaven was heard, “You are my Son, this day I have begotten you.”

Good News Translation (The Catholic Comparative New Testament)
The Baptism of Jesus 21 After all the people had been baptized, Jesus also was baptized. While he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you.”

Jerusalem Bible (The Catholic Comparative New Testament)
Jesus is baptized 21 Now when all the people had been baptized and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily shape, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; my favor rests on you.”

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (The Catholic Comparative New Testament)
Jesus is baptised 21 Now it happened that when all the people had been baptised and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in a physical form, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today have I fathered you.’

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Baptism of Jesus 21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved (Or my beloved Son) with you I am well pleased. (other ancient authorities read You are my Son, today I have begotten you.)

(NRSV) Catholic Bible (Anglicized) (The Catholic Comparative New Testament)
The Baptism of Jesus 21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved (Or my beloved Son) with you I am well pleased. (other ancient authorities read You are my Son, today I have begotten you

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics, and edited it for Catholic use. There were very few changes made. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It was reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible.

The list of changes are noted in the Catholic Comparative New Testament that I have. There is also a chart on Wikipedia showing a list of changes in the 1962 RSV New Testament for the 1965 Catholic Edition. Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

It’s very interesting to see the Catholic translation beside the Protestant translation. In many cases the difference lies in what is placed in the body of text and what is placed in the footnotes. The variance of Luke 1.28 is also noted there: O favored one vs. full of grace. The Catholic Edition does have a footnote which says: “Or O favored one.”
Peace,
Anna**

 

[wwolverine]

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)

I am a Catholic and I use NIV Study Bible. Well it was given to me as a gift by someone, and have used it ever since. Its easier to read and I believe it does have God’s word. It has a concordence and i can check anything i need to.

But during the last readings in the Church, which i was doing so thru the internet, i found lots of verses missing in the NIV, and so am lost. Whether i should keep on using it or discontinue.

God Bless