The New International Version of the Bible is by far the most preferred translation of the Scripture, according to a new survey of U.S. evangelical leaders.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Society > Polls/reports
NIV Bible Tops List by Evangelical Leaders
By
Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Apr. 11 2008 02:09 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
McCain Endorses Calif. Initiative to Protect Marriage
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
The NIV is a good translation in the dynamic tradition. It was the translation my first Bible was in when I was a child. I will continue to recommend it for those looking for an easy-to-read translation.
However, I no longer use it. I have come to prefer a formal translation for study and reading. Originally my options were the NASB or NKJV but I found the ESV some years ago and never looked back. I still reference and read from the NASB, NKJV, and the NIV but my primary Bible is the ESV.
The NIV is used worldwide. Other countries know about learning languages.
We Americans, though we have English Bibles, are just not as good at knowing other languages, it seems, because we are grounded in English.
The NIV or nearly inspired version is ok... but It leaves a lot of verses out and slants a lot of how they translated the Hebrew and Greek in a way that the original authors didn't want it to be slanted... For example, the people who made NIV takes away the emphasis on the end times from alot of the letter in the way they translate most of the words... so I won't use it, I would recommend NKJV or NASB, they are the most accurate of the English translated Bibles
MUCH LIKE THE REST OF AMERICAN EVANGELICALS CHRISTIANITY, EVEN THE THE BIBLE INDUSTRY HAS BECOME BIG BUSINESS.... AND FRANKLY A JOKE,,, THECOMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE IS ACTUALLY A GOOD ONE.
The NIV is the most cleverly marketed bible. It is so watered down that devil could use it. For the best translation rendered in hebrew mindset of the time before the corruption I would suggest THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE.
The good think about the NIV is that it is accurate and easy to read and authoritative. I used to think that the KJV and the NASB were better because they had almost no marginal notes. However, I changed when I found that the English language is changing more quickly and is distributed over the world more intensly saturating it as the language of business and communication. Actually, we need more than one English translation for this very reason -- it keeps the historical and enduring integrity of the language to have an older and a newer translation of the Bible into the world's most used language. So if you didn't take Hebrew and Greek in college, the KJV and the NIV can cover about all you need. However, is not anyone suprized that the HCSB did not make it into the responses ? It has the most complete marginal notes that tell of the choices of manuscripts and includes most of the passages that other modern translations merely put in the margins.
Chris333,
I too was just asking a question; no point intended. I agree that some passages do vary or were not in the original manuscripts. These instances are minute and do not alter the overall message of the Word of God. I am merely pointing out the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian manuscripts; the latter being heavily influenced by Gnostic and Greek philosophies. It is once again, the latter which the new versions are based upon. Ultimately, everyone must do their own research and come to their own conclusions on the matter. Take care and God bless.
SAFox,
"A much large problem is with interpreting the Word to come up with false doctrines like the pre-Trib. Rapture which is nowhere found in the Bible. It is only found in the writing of those who misconstrue the Word to meet an agenda."
I agree; this relatively new teaching of Futurism is a misinterpretation of biblical eschatology.
Online4Him,
No, I haven't made a real study of this, I was only asking the question. For me, it seems that the originals are the better source to go by, not the majority. I assumed that newer versions would be based on better scholarship and older manuscripts. I also could not base my decision on comparing different versions. Many versions now explicitly state that parts of the Bible did not appear in the earliest manuscripts, the end of Mark, the story of the Adulteress, and it appears that modern scholarship agrees that they should not be there. I am sure the TP contains these though.
I like the Amplified my self, though I study & read from several others. Another good Bible reading site is BibleGateway.com. If you are filled with the Holy Spirit He will lead you around any problems with translations. None of them is perfect, but all the ones I have read are good enough to bring one to a knowledge of salvation in Christ & are OK when it comes to the baptism in the Holy Spirit & major points of doctrine. Other wise we would all have to learn the original language.
A much large problem is with interpreting the Word to come up with false doctrines like the pre-Trib. Rapture which is no where found in the Bible. It is only found in the writing of those who misconstrue the Word to meet an agenda.
Before you get to thinking I am off the wall, a Q or 2:
How does one get saved? How does one gain entrance to the Church/Body/Bride of Christ? How do those called the 'left behind' get saved? Why are they then left out of the Church/Body/Bride of Christ? How is it possible to be saved & left out? I do not think it is, but we have the "Left Behind" series tacitly telling us it is possible to get saved & left out of the Church of Jesus. To me this is indicates misinterpretation, not translation problems.I think we have a much larger problem with the former rather than the latter. No music instruments in Church, praying to saints, the gifts of the Spirit are no longer needed, Mary worship, Eastern meditation practices...lots of misinterpretation...
correction:
. . . . but I continue to use the Majority Text; which the KJV is based on.
Chris333,
It may be a good idea to take a look at all the ommisions that are in the new translations; the links that were posted earlier is a good start. Have you personally researched these various translations? Just a question.
continued:
Origen adopted and also promoted this same corrupt version of the TR. It was he that mightily influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate. Eusebius claims to have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters, to have used Origen’s six-column Bible, the Hexapala, in his biblical labors. Wheww- this is why I do not accept the Alexandrian Text, which the RCC uses to this day but continue to use the Majority Text; which the KJV is based on.
Chris333,
Is the Alexandrian Text the earliest manuscript? That is a good question; allow me to share a little.
The church at Pella in Palestine possessed the Textus Receptus also known as the Majority Text, Byzantine Text, and Received Text; where Christians fled in 70 A.D. because of the Romans destruction of Jerusalem. This text was carried away into Antioch Syria, Italic Church in northern Italy, Gallic Church in southern France, and the Celtic Church in Great Britain.
History bears witness to the fact, that some of the early church fathers adopted Gnostic beliefs and began to incorporate them into the TR and this corrupt version became known as the Alexandrian Text. Notable fathers who accepted certain Gnostic beliefs were Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Eusebius is witness to this fact. He also relates that the corrupted manuscripts were so prevalent that agreement between copies was hopeless and that those who were corrupting the scriptures claimed that they really were corrupting them – Eusebius, Eccles. History, Book V., Chap. 28.
.
Justin Martyr, originally a pagan and of pagan parentage, embraced Christianity. Even though he was a Christian teacher, he actually taught pagan philosophy. His pupil Tatian also adopted Gnosticism (in Palestine) and wrote a book called the Diatessaron, meaning four in one (Encyclopedias, “Tatian”). This corrupted version of the gospel was being circulated and was eventually thrown out by the bishop of Syria. Next, we come to Tatian’s pupil known as Clement of Alexandria; who founded a school in Alexandria and further promoted this corrupt version of the TR (Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 330.)
Online4Him,
Yes, but the key is the earliest manuscripts, not the majority. The majority of manuscripts are much later, whereas the extreme minority are very early. If we are looking for the least corrupt, then we should go back to the beginning.
More than 90% of all ancient manuscripts support the Textus Receptus which the KJV is based on and yet most people are unaware of the fact that all new translations are based upon the corrupt Gnostic Alexandrian Text. Only 10% of all manuscripts support the Alexandrian Text; do a parallel comparison between any new translation and the KJV and you will begin to see all of the omissions and blatant distorted verses that begin to appear.
http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/versions.htm
Here is a printable comparison tract which one should consider –
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/Tracts/InAwe_tract.pdf
This is sad. The NIV manages some great translations (especially in the OT) but is largely inadequate if you care about staying as faithful to the original text as possible. Here, the RSV, ESV, and NASB are much better options -- the RSV being my favorite. The NKJV is your most eloquent translation, but you need to check the footnotes to see where it differs with the standard critical editions (because the NKJV kept with the outdated Textus Receptus as their standard -- a dumb move but made-up for with the footnotes).
The NET Bible at bible.org is a pretty good resource.
The NIV is NOT a translation. It is a dynamic equivalent. It conveys a thought for thought equivalent and not a word for word translation. For reading its fine. For serious study its lacking. The NASB, is probably one of the most accurate english translations out there.
“Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God..."
Correction: ALL Christians believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, but God bless the fire that our evangelical brothers and sisters have!
I'm sorry, but I can't read the NIV. It is so short and choppy. It is always so obvious when someone reads from it. I love the NKJV. I received one back in 1984 as a gift from a pastor in Ohio who had helped translate Habakkuk.