I wonder if I can debate my own opinions and likes or dislikes here too, after all we're all here to learn:
I quite enjoy the Clear Word, but use a variety of other translations when studying, including the NIV and the KJV, I find the e-Sword an invaluable tool as well, and there I have the various KJ versions like the 2000, the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ Red Letter as well as teh KJ with Strong's concordance but also the literal translation, Webster's and Young's literal translation.
All of these help one to understand things better, specially if one asks for a comparison of a verse.
One thing that kind of bothers me from an authoritative view is that the Sabbath School Books we have (published in the USA) use the NIV almost exclusively and we all know the NIV misses and diminishes the divinity of our Lord in many instances, as well as omits certain verses and parts thereof...it just...bothers me.
What is the general opinion here?
I am critical of the NIV in that it tends to translate towards the Fundamentalist Evangelical camp. However as to the other issues I think that if you were to study them out you would find that it is more critics who are looking for fault, upset that they can't use their favorite proof texts as a hammer and that their criticizisms don't hold up to careful study.
Some of the verses are not in the oldest copies of the Bible (sometimes this can be due to the end of the book deteriating) but often the text is put in foot notes, as it might be a part of the original text or it might have been a scribes comment later. Other times it is clearly scrible comments and they are tryig to stick to the actual text. Then there are different ways they could translate the words and thus choose different words that come from further studies of what the words mean or shades of meaning. The King James has a lot of words that the translators had to guess at, or even if they had some general idea as to the word that they did not know the shades of meaning; like if I was to talk about clicking my mouse the King James translators might think that I have a pet rodent and wonder what I mean by clicking that rodent and just try to guess. When the NIV was written, while there were still a number of words that they have to guess at (last I heard there were about 3,000 words that we don't know at all, and we still don't know shades of meaning like how we have the word "Mouse" or "Apple" [am I discussing fruit, the Big Apple New York City, or a computer])
As for the texts that supposably diminish the divinity of Christ, let me tell you a story about one such verse and there are similar explanations for the others:
In the KJV we read in Mark 15:39 the centurion saying "Truely, this man was the Son of God" but in modern translations it is often translated "Truely, this man was a son of the gods" and critics say this lessens Jesus' divinity; but does it?
It was not until after the time of Jesus as the apostels were begining to realize who Jesus was that the term "The Son of God" picked up divinic aspects. In Jesus' day itself the term "The Son of God" meant no more than Kind David and any king of David's house. David was the Son of God. Solomon was The Son of God. Rehoboam was The Son of God. Ahaz was The Son of God. Manasseth was The Son of God. Jehoiakim was The Son of God. The term "The Son of God" was no more than a local political term, like "Commander in Chief"
One of the theams of Mark (and a big difference between Mark and Luke) is that Mark had Jesus not recognized for who he truely was, that is until the pagan centurion; a man so far away from the truth that he would make a phrase that would shock every good monothiestic Jew. The phrase from his culture meaning a divine being, a real god. The centuran was not intersted in local Judain politics. He did not care that this man was to sit on David's throne. What he realized was that Jesus was indeed God and said it in the only words that a Pagan would say it in. It was a rebuke that those who have studied the scripture, who knew about the one true God did not recognize that this one true God was with them, but that a polythiestic pagan relized that this person was indeed God and expressed it even though the words choosen came from his polythiestic context.
(By the way. Luke on the other hand had nearly everyone knowing who Jesus was, but when he came to this centurian, he has the centurian missing the point and only saying that Jesus was a good man). Ok, so we loose the proof text "Truely, this was the Son of God" but we get to see the message that Mark was actually telling us and as we understand this context and present the text in it's context it again becomes a proof text that the centuran indeed realized that Jesus was God.
The NIV is a deception and a fraud perpetrated upon God's people by the enemy of souls. IT has over 5000 omissions and changed words. It also attacks the sanctuary doctrine by changing "cleansed" to "reconsecrated." Heb.9:12, changes holy place to Most Holy seemingly to prove Jesus entered the Most Holy at His ascension. This is precisely why Desmond Ford used liberal faulty Bible versions and still does.
Both major minority manuscripts, A and B, that are used for the NIV and others were found in the Vatican library, and a trash can outside of a Catholic monastery.
That is why the NIV and the catholic Douay version are nearly the same.
The apostles, and all the prophets had a correct understanding of the deity of Christ, it is nonsense to assume the Holy Spirit would use the name of pagan gods for Christ. It is instead a subtle deception of Satan that attacks the deity of Christ.
Daniel 3:25 (New International Version)
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
What son of what gods?
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, See, I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
"a son of" and "the Son" also is significant.
Below is a well researched article from a former Catholics point of view, very powerful.http://www.geocities.com/heartland/plains/2594/nivmay97.htm
Although the KJB clearly states that we should, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God...” (2 Tim.2:15), the NIV is not so clear: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved....” This irreverence for the word is obvious in many NIV passages and corresponds with Rome’s attitude towards the scriptures. She has put her traditions above the word and brought it under subjection to her interpretations. Another good example is 1 Pet. 2:1:
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere MILK OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“Like newborn babies, crave pure SPIRITUAL MILK, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
The NIV leaves the reader with no direction to where this “spiritual milk” can be found. The same problem exists with the NIV rendering of Heb.5:14:
“For every one that useth milk is UNSKILFUL IN THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: for he is a babe.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE TEACHING ABOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
Since the NIV has corrupted the word of God, I can see why they changed the next scripture:
“For we are not as many, which CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD....” (2 Cor.2:17) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“Unlike so many, we do not PEDDLE THE WORD OF GOD FOR PROFIT....” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
It is a common practice of Roman Catholicism to take a verse of scripture out of context to promote their unbiblical doctrines. I personally believe that the NIV is not only intended to be the Bible for whatever belief or doctrine you may be searching for, but particularly and deliberately intended to support and defend Roman Catholic doctrine.
I don’t think you have to be a genius to figure out that if two Bibles disagree with each other, one of them has been altered. A good example of this is Hosea 11:12:
“Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: BUT JUDAH YET RULETH WITH GOD , AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS.” (Emphasis mine)
Now let’s look at the NIV’s version:
“Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel with deceit. and JUDAH IS UNRULY AGAINST GOD, EVEN AGAINST THE FAITHFUL HOLY ONE.” (Emphasis mine)
Now which is it? Is Judah “faithful with the saints” or “unruly against God”? How do we know which one to trust? We know that God is not the author of confusion (I Cor.14:33). We also know that, “Every word of God is pure....” (Prov.30:5)
It is essential, when contending for the true faith, that one have the “pure” word of God. The sword of the Spirit, the word of God
“...is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb.12:4)
If a man tamper with that word in any way by adding or taking from it, he will suffer the wrath of God. (Rev.22:18-19, Deut.4:2, Prov.30:5-6)
“ I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” (Ecc. 3:14)
Either the NIV has taken from the word or the KJB has added to the word, but they both cannot be right!!! One reason that I believe the KJB is the correct version is because of the contradictions found in the NIV. An example is found in comparing three verses in both versions: 1 Sam.17:51, 2 Sam.21:19 and 1 Chron.20:5. You will find that the KJB correctly states that David killed Goliath and that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. But in the NIV (and the Catholic Bible) you will discover that David kills Goliath in one verse and Elhanan kills Goliath in another.
Upon further examination, we find the reason for these contradictions. The NIV is taken from corrupt manuscripts out of Alexandria, Egypt. Rome has used these manuscripts as a foundation for her Bible. But the KJB comes from the Textus Receptusmanuscripts (which had not been tampered with) that came out of Antioch.
There are two men responsible for the newer translations, whose work was based on the corrupted manuscripts of Rome. I would like to take a look at the doctrines held by these two men, Wescott and Hort.
“Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non- Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus” (The Answer Book, Samuel Gipp, Question #44).
They both believed that Heaven only existed in the mind of men and believed it possible to communicate with the dead a
nd often attempted to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild".
“Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"), and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution” (The Answer Book, Samuel Gipp, Question #44).Hort called Christ's substitutionary atonement "immoral.
" Writing to Westcott, he said:
“I entirely agree -- correcting one word -- with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an IMMORAL AND MATERIAL COUNTERFEIT ..... Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal HERESY.”These men denied the finished work of Christ on the cross for our sins!!
Does the NIV reflect that? Yes it does. One verse that I find most disturbing is Col.1:14 which reads in the KJB:
“In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins.” (Emphasis mine)
The NIV omits “through his blood”. Why? We know that Hort called a substitution sacrifice “immoral”. We also know Rome teaches that the mass is an “unbloody” sacrifice that takes away sins. But this verse makes it clear that “redemption” “even the forgiveness of sins” is “through the blood”. A most powerful verse is rendered impotent by the NIV. Likewise, Romans 14:6 is altered to help support the Catholic teaching that Sunday is a holy day and must be regarded as such:
“He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.” (NIV)
Since Rome teaches that to miss mass is a mortal sin and unless repented of before death leads to hell, she would have to get rid of the proof that a man may “NOT regard a day”.
Being a former Catholic, I am also aware of terms used that trigger certain ideas, such as the term “consecrated bread”. As a Catholic, I would immediately connect that with the priest having to say words over a piece of bread to turn it into God (transubstantiation).
When a person is brain-washed into believing one concept, the right wording can help to support that biased slant. A good example is the word “shewbread”. In the King James Bible we read:
“And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the SHEWBREAD, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” (Mr.2:23-28) (Emphasis mine)
For a Christian, the emphasis is grace! In both situations, God’s people were hungry, but the law forbid them to eat. Grace is greater than the law, because God in His mercy fed them anyway! It is a great illustration for those of us who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Even though we have broken the law and deserve death, grace entered in and Jesus had mercy on us and fed us and gave us life.
Jesus could do this because He was the Lord of the Sabbath. But the NIV changed “shewbread” to “consecrated bread” and the average Catholic, being preconditioned, will connect this verse with the Roman Catholic wafer used in their mass. The fact that it is “consecrated” means to them that a Roman priest is necessary. The true message is blurred to make way for RCC doctrine. (Compare Matt.12:4; 6:4)
The NIV also helps to promote the idea that we need priests to minister. In Romans 15:16 we read:
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, MINISTERING THE GOSPEL OF GOD, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
But the NIV reads slightly different:
“...to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the PRIESTLY DUTY OF PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL OF GOD, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Emphasis mine)
The change makes “proclaiming the gospel” a “priestly duty”, instead of the responsibility of all believers in Jesus.
One area that I personally noticed the twisting of scriptures to support RCC doctrine is Hebrews 1:3. It is well known that Roman Catholicism pictures Mary as a sinless Co-Redemptress and Co-Mediatrix, and according to Dr. Mark Miravalle, author of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, (which has the approval of Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, O.P., Papal Theologian Emeritus for Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II), the next dogma that will be pronounced “ex-cathedra” will be on the role of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix and Advocate. Does the NIV support this claim by blurring the one verse that bluntly exposes this lie?
Let’s take a look at the KJB reading of Hebrews 1:3:
“Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had BY HIMSELF PURGED OUR SINS, sat down ON the right hand of the Majesty on high.”(Emphasis mine)
When witnessing to a Catholic, this verse is essential in making clear the redemptive work was done by Christ alone “by himself”, and disproving the need for a co-redemptress. But alas, if all I had to use was the watered-down NIV, I could no longer make such a proclamation, for it reads:
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had PROVIDED PURIFICATION FOR SINS, he sat down AT the right hand of the Majesty.”(Emphasis mine)
Rome also teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, claiming that Mary had no other children. The NIV helps to support their doctrine by omitting “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25. Matthew 13:55 clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters:
“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”
Another verse, often overlooked, proves that Mary had other children. Psalms 69:8 is a prophecy concerning Jesus. It reads:
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.”
If Mary would have defrauded her husband Joseph of his conjugal rights, not only was the marriage never consummated, but Mary had disobeyed I Cor. 7:5.
The NIV’s rendering of James 5:16 is another misrepresentation of God’s Word in order to justify the Roman Catholic’s Confessional. They have replaced “confess your faults” with “confess your sins”.
The NIV’s rendering of the Lord’s prayer omits “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”(Matt.6:9-13) Why would the NIV leave that out? Could it be to support Roman thinking she is the “kingdom” and the “power”?
In Revelation 2:15, the Lord rebukes the doctrine of the Nicolatians (a term that means “to conquer the laity”):
“So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, WHICH THING I HATE.” (Emphasis mine)
But the NIV omits this very important phrase “which thing I hate”. This validates the priesthood, which rules over the people, in such a way that the doctrines of the RCC won’t be in question.
The issue of salvation is as obscure in the NIV as it is in Catholicism. Rome teaches that to be “born- again” is to be baptized as a baby (who can neither repent, or believe). When the eunuch asked Philip, “...See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36) (Emphasis mine), Philip answered, “If thou BELIEVEST with all thine heart, thou mayest.”(Emphasis mine) In the NIV you do not get an answer because verse 37 is omitted. (NIV jumps from verse 36 to 38) Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Heb.4:6 uses the Israelites as an example of those who did not enter into the “rest” of God:
“...they to whom it was first preached entered not in BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF.” (Heb.4:6) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
The NIV changes “unbelief” to “disobedience”. We have all been disobedient, but we have not all had faith. They are not the same thing!
In the following example, we have one verse claiming we “are saved” and another claiming we “are being saved”. Rome teaches that one can never know for sure if they “are saved”. If they do, they have committed the “sin of presumption” and are damned. Catholic apologists have a hard enough time trying to squirm their way out of I John 5:13 (“...that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life”)
(Emphasis mine), let alone have to deal with all those verses claiming we “are saved”. The NIV helps to support Rome’s doctrine, but the KJB stands firm that we are saved, not “in the process” of being saved.
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which ARE SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
Out of curiosity, I typed into my computer Bible the term “are saved” and there were 6 verses, six occurrences. I looked up each one of them in the NIV and found they had all been tampered with, except one. They are as follows:
“For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that ARE SAVED, and in them that perish.” (2 Cor.2:15) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who ARE BEING SAVED and those who are perishing.” (2 Cor.2:15) (NIV) (Emphasis mine) “For we ARE SAVED by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” (Rom.8:24) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“For in this hope we WERE SAVED.” (Rom.8:24) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
“... (by grace ye ARE SAVED)...For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.... ” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“...it is by grace ye HAVE BEEN SAVED...For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED.” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
“And the nations of them which ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it....” (Rev.21:24) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“The nations will walk by its light....” (Rev.21:24) (NIV)
Because the Catholic church obscures salvation, many of her subjects, in an attempt to please God and make reparation for sins, will beat themselves. Religious orders such as Dominicans, Jesuits, Augustinians, and many “saints” such as “St” Anthony of Padua, “St.” Vincent Ferrer, and even pope Clement VI are known for flagellating themselves. If they read the NIV, they can find support for this behavior, but not so in the KJB.
“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.” (1Cor.9:27) (KJB)
“No, I beat my body and make it my slave....” (I Cor.9:27) (NIV)
I cannot pretend that this article even remotely touches the doctrinal problems of the NIV, but hopefully it has alerted those who truly love God’s word to the dangers that using the NIV can produce. If you read the NIV, I implore you, to please compare everything with the KJB and pray. You’ll notice the word “begotten” has been removed. There are verses missing such as:
“But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (Mk.11:26)
And again, Mark 15:28:
“And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
The KJB has never been copyrighted, but the NIV is. If God wrote the Bible, then who are these men to copyright God’s word? Why should they profit on His word, or as the NIV would say, “peddle the word of God for profit”? I have to wonder if I could get into trouble for not asking permission to quote the NIV. These men will answer to God for what they’ve done, but if the blind lead the blind...both fall into the pit. (Matt.15: 14) Follow the words of men, and you may find yourself in the same pit with them!
“The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?” (Jer.8:9)
by Rebecca A. Sexton