Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

[Izdaari]

When I am studying the Bible I don’t just use one particular type, instead choosing three or four versions. Protestants know that the Bible can be translated in different ways, with some Bibles being word for word translations of the original languages and yet other Bibles being a “thought for thought” translation of the writers intentions.

So if you want to get a good overall view of what a text is trying to say it is always best to use at least three Bibles… one from the “Word for Word” end of the translation scale (ESV, KJV are at this end), one from the “Thought for Thought” end of the scale (e.g. “The message”) and then one from the middle of the scale (like the NIV).

That;s if your going “in depth” in your studies but most just like to be able to read a text and have a good understanding of its meaning quickly and easily and for them a Bible like the NIV that makes the best of both sides of the scale is the best option.

Here’s a good site with graphs showing what I’m talking about.
apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

Yeah, that’s what I do too: One “word for word” translation, one “thought for thought”, and one middle of the road.

 

[Tyuiop411]

Thanks for the review.

I actually prefer the TNIV over the NIV, and I’m hoping the NIV 2011 will be a worthy replacement since they won’t be publishing the TNIV anymore.

You may be unhappy with it if your looking for something very similar to the TNIV. They did keep the changes they made in the TNIV in some places, but in most places they reverted back to the way the NIV 1984 was, albeit with a few changes. For the most part they reverted to the NIV 1984 where the TNIV’s renderings were controversial and kept the TNIV renderings that weren’t controversial and didn’t break to far from traditional renderings.

I personally liked the TNIV, but it was shot down by the conservative Protestant machine before it even got off the ground. Poor thing never had a chance.

 

[pritchard85]

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.

I think that’s its just plain foolish not to recognize and admit that Scripture versions of today are much better due to the number of Biblical scholars that have dedicated their lives and lives work to the Scriptures specifically certain books or a single book. I think it just goes without saying.

 

[Tyuiop411]

I think that’s its just plain foolish not to recognize and admit that Scripture versions of today are much better due to the number of Biblical scholars that have dedicated their lives and lives work to the Scriptures specifically certain books or a single book. I think it just goes without saying.

I wouldn’t say that modern scholars are any better, sure we use more critical methodology today, but is that even a good thing? Ancient translators and scholars also had an advantage we don’t have, access to older manuscripts than we do today.

There is a reason why the Vulgate is still used to help translate the Bible today, it bears witness to manuscripts that have been lost to time.

 

[pritchard85]

I wouldn’t say that modern scholars are any better, sure we use more critical methodology today, but is that even a good thing? Ancient translators and scholars also had an advantage we don’t have, access to older manuscripts than we do today.

There is a reason why the Vulgate is still used to help translate the Bible today, it bears witness to manuscripts that have been lost to time.

 

[Tyuiop411]

Well, I would say that scholars today have access to ancient writings and teachings coupled with their life’s work. I myself read from the NIV. I have at times also read from the ESV with the apocrypha which I think is a great version which translates more on a word for word basis as to the thought for thought of the NIV. I still think that both versions are very good.

 

[Adamski]

I am a revert catholic and reading the niv bible next to the new American bible helped with my re conversion. I found in many passages the niv took out the word tradition of the apostles and changed it for teaching of the apostles. Were the king James kept the same wording as the catholic bible. It’s been a while so I don’t remember the passages off hand

 

[Adamski]

I have done a lot of research comparing bibles

Douay- rhiems- direct translantion of jerome’s Latin vulgate for yr 300+/- that he researched available Hebrew, and Greek scrolls. Word for word translation

New American bible- jerome’s Latin vulgate plus new information found prior to 300ad such as dead sea scrolls. Also more modern English. Word for word translation

King James
Very close translantion of jerome’s Latin vulgate form yr 300+/- that he researched available Hebrew, and Greek scrolls. Word for word translation

Niv- Greek and Hebrew translation verse by verse through personal interpitation of Protestant evangelical committee.
Compare John 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20. The verses have a new meaning based of the fundemetilist position of osos and sola scriptoria.

 

[CopticChristian]

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)

The NIV is translated with a Protestant mindset.

The following is from a prior CAF posting…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=128559

The NIV is anti-Catholic and LIES because it translates the Greek word for tradition as teachings.

Paul said “Hold fast to the traditions that I have given you”. The NIV says teachings. Why? Because from its Evangelical viewpoint it can’t bear the Catholic concept of SacredTradition.

It translates the very same Greek word as TRADITION whenever it refers to Pharisees and tradition in a negative light.

The Greek word in both contexts is exactly the same but the NIV makes it “teachings” when it suits its purposes.

Who can trust translators like that?

 

[batman1973]

I personally dont like the NIV. It’s hard to explain. It just never “sat well” with me. I prefer the King James Version.

 

[777rak]

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.

I am/have used it and like it.

 

[Adamski]

Niv, I have done further research and found that the niv is published by a corporation owned by Rupert Murdock. The infomus world news and fox new owner.

I suggest anyone using it put their trust in the church Jesus founded (the catholic church) and use the bible that the church sanctions.

The douay and the nab is very similar codex sinaicatus or codex vanticanus the oldest existing bibles. Where the niv is extremely different.

 

[asd72]

I don’t know what Bibles an AG church would use. There are like 12,000 all over the U.S. It would be a big job and we would find a lot of variety. But it said “homes and churches”. I’m sure there are at least some AG “homes” that have the translations you mentioned. To put it this way, so you can understand - NO ONE IS BEING KICKED OUT OF AN AG CHURCH BECAUSE THEY POSSESS A CATHOLIC BIBLE. There. It just doesn’t happen.

CopticChristian, what you need to understand is that the AG is part of that pro-Reformation traditions that believes in the “priesthood of all Believers” and is part of the Pentecostal tradition which believes in the “Prophethood of all Believers”. Therefore in matters such as Bible translations, the AG headquarters might have a preference, but it has no right or authority (and claims none) to tell a Christian what translation to read. Pentecostals are pragmatic people. If you like reading the Douay–Rheims Bible and you get more out of it then reading the KJV or the NIV or the ESV or whatever, then Pentecostals will be like ok good for you. Protestants are not big on pushing particular Bible translations on their members in general.

Irwin,

The Catholic Church also belives in the Priesthood of all belivers. We are a Kingdom of Priests. It’s a little off topic but if you want to know more perhaps start another thread.

 

[777rak]

The NIV is translated with a Protestant mindset.

The following is from a prior CAF posting…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=128559

Oh I did not realize that. Thanks for informing me.

 

[jonathanw]

I’m Catholic and I really like the NIV, but I also really like the RSV CE too. I grew up with the NIV though, so that’s probably why I like it so much.

 

[submariner2]

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,

I am not sure why some of those translations are more popular but with regard that it is “normal” for protestant bibles to be different from Catholic bibles, that is not true. The latest bibles, protestant and Catholic, have been translated with protestant and Catholic experts working together. The New Jerusalem BIble is an excellent bible. There should be no different meanings at all. Protestants and Catholic scholars are in agreement on the meanings of the authors of the bible without exception.

Rob

 

[Porknpie]

I would appreciate any insight to the New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th edition with apocrypha. It was given to me as a gift and I heard it was being used at U of Dalllas. Thank you.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Eric,

I am not sure why some of those translations are more popular but with regard that it is “normal” for protestant bibles to be different from Catholic bibles, that is not true. The latest bibles, protestant and Catholic, have been translated with protestant and Catholic experts working together. The New Jerusalem BIble is an excellent bible. There should be no different meanings at all. Protestants and Catholic scholars are in agreement on the meanings of the authors of the bible without exception.

Rob

True! Almost all Bibles now come from the Nestsle-Aland set of manuscripts. Both Catholic and Protestants use them in their translations.

The KJV is an Anglican Bible and though KJV Onlyists don’t like it, it was first compiled by Desiderious Erasmus, a Catholic Priest. The KJV uses the Textus Receptus which are Byzantine in nature. Today the differences between the TR and Alexandrian manuscripts demonstrates less than 2% differences and absolutely no change in doctrine. It is only the interpretation of scriptures that one considers them to be more Catholic, than Protestant.

I’m a Protestant and the NIV is my least favorite translation.

Funny how these ideas get started, blown-up and then described as fact.

God Bless.

 

[submariner2]

I would appreciate any insight to the New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th edition with apocrypha. It was given to me as a gift and I heard it was being used at U of Dalllas. Thank you.

Pork,

I have no direct knowledge but probably a very good translation and very good english. Anything from Oxford should be good.

Rob

 

[MaryLouItalia]

When I was in my fundamentalist phase (reformed baptist), for me the only ‘perfect protestant bible’ (in English), was the AV\KJV. I bough also the NKJV, language too modern for my taste. Yes, I was a AV\KJV only.
In my church here in Italy, I was using only text-based translations of Giovanni Diodati (born in Swiss, but his parents roots were in Tuscany). The 1894 version was my favourite along with the 1600 original version (aka Diodatina).