How do you like your Schuyler? I just reviewed the NLT Premier by Zondervan and I gotta say its one of the finest bibles I've reviewed on my channel. Its only $80 and IMHO its just as good as some of the $200 bibles, If you love the NIV its a must have. Its no Schuyler but boy it stand just fine on its own.😉
Shawn Clarkson you are badly mistaken the words and verses you keep banging on about being removed are not in the more reliable older manuscripts, so we could say that the manuscripts the KJV is based on that they were added over the centuries it’s just as Wong to add to the bible .
@@shawnstephens6795 yes they are closer to the originals and if copys and copys and copys was hand written over the generations its likely that a scribe wrote a note next to a verse to give meaning and over the years it was added into the text.
I like that you have footnotes in the 2011 NIV. I may be one of the few bible students that reads them. I don’t think it’s a terrible translation, however, I have a very limited understanding of Greek. I think you guys have done a great job, so far. I haven’t found any major issues yet.
@@jover9586 Thank you for bringing me back to 5 years ago when I posted that comment. It’s funny to see how far we come in that time. Oh what can happen in that time when I first discovered the dangers of what KJV Onlyism can be. Then I just discovered Steven Anderson, Sam Gip, Peter Ruckman, etc. You said they “change the word of God” automatically inferring that you only consider the KJV God’s word. While it’s a good Bible, and I love it, you are mistaken for saying it’s the only word of God, and you will answer to him for elevating and idolizing a Bible translation. Worship the creator, not the Bible. I won’t argue with your faulty logic. I pray you come out of that cult. God bless.
I have many translations of Bible and I find the NIV the best preaching Bible, I find it just a accurate as other translations, it’s just easier to use , very easy English , I use the Hebrew and Greek and find no problems with the NIV . Yes it’s not going to be as accurate as the original Hebrew but no Bible is , Hebrew has so much more meaning but the NIV is very good for people to get a understanding without struggling like with the king James.
Your comment sounds like a commercial. In reality the NIV had homosexuals involved in the translating and the translators also removed many important verses and chopped many verses in half. No thanks. I've been reading the KJV since I was a teenager. It's not hard to understand.
@@christopherrodarte9822No homosexual was on the NIV translation committee. Another lie from the KJV only cult. Also no verses missing. Because it was translated from older more accurate manuscripts that did not have these so called missing verses. The KJV translated from later manuscripts dedicated to the. Had many added uninspired verses that were not part of inspired scripture. Put there by scribes, so the KJV has added verses.. Also the NIV is very clear about the sin of homosexual practices. Far more than the KJV. It is very clear about the sin of adultery and drunkenness as well. But the the KJV translation committee included an alcoholic and adulterer. Strange that the hypocritical KJV only cult never mention that. Not surprising it would expose the appalling double standards of the KJV only cult.
I read the footnotes in all the translations I read... Also, I want to use this comment to praise the 2011 update of the NIV. I think people got way too distracted by the gender changes (which are very sensible changes if you ask me) and didn't notice how much better the update was in so many other ways. They completely fixed the issues the older version had in the epistles.
There may be some pluses, but I found it to be so bad, I stopped reading it entirely. Then Bible Gateway dropped it lol. Now, that's saying something considering Zondervan runs the site ! I'm glad if you found some beauty in it...but the first version that I ever read seriously was the NIV 1984 and I can honestly say that I found it to be way Superior...and that's coming from someone that has now made The KJV my main study for decades now.
I don't think he was on the committee but on an advisory group. He certainly critiqued massive errors in the earlier NIV and they listened. E.g.. 1 Corinthians 7 in the original NIV was just so poor. As for myself, I used to recommend people away from the NIV because of its inconsistent way it translated sarka as "sinful nature" which was deplorable. In the recent NIV it only appear twice and both in Romans 7. It's really like a new bible. Good revisions.
I was torn between ESV and NIV and one verse helped me pick NIV...I never got the verse until my NIV... John 1:18 ...those who say NIV takes away Jesus' Godhood?? Read JOHN 1:18 ...cant be more clear!!!
Did they answer why they changed Jesus from Gods only begotten Son to Gods one and only Son..because we are all children of God so why is this book saying we are not?
I believe the greek in that verse can say one and only son or only begotten son either rendering is correct in English, however I'm with you and think only begotten son is the better rendering.
I don't think Gordon Fee was on the committee but on an advisory group. He certainly critiqued massive errors in the earlier NIV and they listened. E.g.. 1 Corinthians 7 in the original NIV was just so poor. As for myself, I used to recommend people away from the NIV because of its inconsistent way it translated sarka as "sinful nature" which was deplorable. In the recent NIV it only appear twice and both in Romans 7. It's really like a new bible. Good revisions. I'm a bit reserved about the influence of Douglas Moo on the committee. Gordon Fee would have been preferable esp. In translation of Romans 8:26 rather than Moo's influence. I'm an Anthropologist and we understand something translators don't always get.. that you have to have some common experience with the culture you are researching to understand what's being said. That's why Anthropologist spent some time living amongst the culture being researched. Of course that's not possible for a Biblical scholar today, but if a scholar shares a common experience with New Testament Christians they have some extra insight. Thats where Spirit-filled (tounges speaking including) scholars help.
Revelation 22:19 King James Version *19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.*
Just read the NIV alongside the KJV and you will be good. The KJV is the proof text the NIV is to help clarify meaning on difficult passages. You will be surprised by how the NIV brings out more substantial meaning and sometimes the dynamic approach to translation gives the more literal meaning to what the original author intended.
Seriously, what is wrong with a literal translation? A translation can be much more literal than the KJV, NASB, or ESV. I don't consider any of those translations all that literal despite their reputations as being literal. I find the ASV to be much more literal than any of today's popular translations. I wish someone would take the ASV, and update is slightly with info from the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe a few more updates based on recent scholarship and then leave it at that. Then produce it in a nice leather binding at a reasonable price on good paper, etc.
@@deanclouse3800 why are you so hostile all the time ? And you can't seem to admit when someone makes a valid point either. UA-cam comment area ='s ???
In my NIV it says David killed goliath. 19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod. 2 Samuel 21:19 NIVUK
Clearly, this translation is very methodical and deceiving like a serpent. If a gospel is changed as to take out the salvation, reconciliation of Christ and The God head is left out, what do you have?!!
My brilliant NIV tells me that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Not counting our sin against us for those who are in Christ. My brilliant NIV tells me that Jesus is the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. My brilliant NIV tells me that salvation is found in no one else but Jesus. My brilliant NIV tells me that the name of Jesus is the only name given to men by which we must be saved. The gospel message could not be clearer. It is obvious that you are a liar and the devil is behind your comment. Not surprising if you are KJV only. Because Satan is behind this cult too
Why dont you just stay with Gods true word rather than changing it and even taking out verses .and say they put them somewhere else. this niv seems to be the only 1 that does that . niv is thought for thought
Try understanding that verses are not left out. If they are not where you are familiar with seeing them, search and see why. There are several good reasons for this. Judging every bible against what you feel is the correct one is just wrong. There is a much bigger picture than that.
What is God's "true word"? It can't be the KJV, because that is only four hundred years old. Also it is a translation, therefore not inspired. So where is the "true word"?
@@gregtowle8830 So what is your point? No doctrine is changed. The NIV is stronger on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit than the KJV ever was. God is using it and blessing it to bring many to Christ. No one who uses the KJV has anything superior to me. No matter what ridiculous and ludicrous claims made by the KJV only cult. The gospel is about Christ and him crucified not some archaic imperfect uninspired translation of scripture.
I'm soon to have a Schuyler 2011 NIV. Schuyler makes a great Bible--the quality and craftsmanship is unsurpassed. Love the NIV.
How do you like your Schuyler? I just reviewed the NLT Premier by Zondervan and I gotta say its one of the finest bibles I've reviewed on my channel. Its only $80 and IMHO its just as good as some of the $200 bibles, If you love the NIV its a must have. Its no Schuyler but boy it stand just fine on its own.😉
Shawn Clarkson you are badly mistaken the words and verses you keep banging on about being removed are not in the more reliable older manuscripts, so we could say that the manuscripts the KJV is based on that they were added over the centuries it’s just as Wong to add to the bible .
@@datchet11 ...we have 1% of manuscripts from the 3rd century...based on those you think its justified to remove verses from the bible???
@@shawnstephens6795 yes they are closer to the originals and if copys and copys and copys was hand written over the generations its likely that a scribe wrote a note next to a verse to give meaning and over the years it was added into the text.
Why is it that the new translations only put what the Hebrew said in Zachariah 13:16 in a footnote?
(Thank goodness for the KJV.)
I like that you have footnotes in the 2011 NIV. I may be one of the few bible students that reads them. I don’t think it’s a terrible translation, however, I have a very limited understanding of Greek. I think you guys have done a great job, so far. I haven’t found any major issues yet.
@@jover9586 Thank you for bringing me back to 5 years ago when I posted that comment. It’s funny to see how far we come in that time. Oh what can happen in that time when I first discovered the dangers of what KJV Onlyism can be. Then I just discovered Steven Anderson, Sam Gip, Peter Ruckman, etc. You said they “change the word of God” automatically inferring that you only consider the KJV God’s word. While it’s a good Bible, and I love it, you are mistaken for saying it’s the only word of God, and you will answer to him for elevating and idolizing a Bible translation. Worship the creator, not the Bible. I won’t argue with your faulty logic. I pray you come out of that cult. God bless.
I have many translations of Bible and I find the NIV the best preaching Bible, I find it just a accurate as other translations, it’s just easier to use , very easy English , I use the Hebrew and Greek and find no problems with the NIV . Yes it’s not going to be as accurate as the original Hebrew but no Bible is , Hebrew has so much more meaning but the NIV is very good for people to get a understanding without struggling like with the king James.
Your comment sounds like a commercial. In reality the NIV had homosexuals involved in the translating and the translators also removed many important verses and chopped many verses in half. No thanks. I've been reading the KJV since I was a teenager. It's not hard to understand.
@@christopherrodarte9822No homosexual was on the NIV translation committee. Another lie from the KJV only cult. Also no verses missing. Because it was translated from older more accurate manuscripts that did not have these so called missing verses. The KJV translated from later manuscripts dedicated to the. Had many added uninspired verses that were not part of inspired scripture. Put there by scribes, so the KJV has added verses.. Also the NIV is very clear about the sin of homosexual practices. Far more than the KJV. It is very clear about the sin of adultery and drunkenness as well. But the the KJV translation committee included an alcoholic and adulterer. Strange that the hypocritical KJV only cult never mention that. Not surprising it would expose the appalling double standards of the KJV only cult.
So far as it stands now my favorite translation of all time is the 84 NIV and I'm sure I will get criticized for this but a close second is the NLT
Replacing the ecclesiastical term "bishop" with the generic "overseer" is a reason KJV is the real thing. The NIV is a useful commentary.
I read the footnotes in all the translations I read...
Also, I want to use this comment to praise the 2011 update of the NIV. I think people got way too distracted by the gender changes (which are very sensible changes if you ask me) and didn't notice how much better the update was in so many other ways. They completely fixed the issues the older version had in the epistles.
There may be some pluses, but I found it to be so bad, I stopped reading it entirely. Then Bible Gateway dropped it lol. Now, that's saying something considering Zondervan runs the site ! I'm glad if you found some beauty in it...but the first version that I ever read seriously was the NIV 1984 and I can honestly say that I found it to be way Superior...and that's coming from someone that has now made The KJV my main study for decades now.
@@donsilva5394 "and that's coming from someone that has now made The KJV my main study for decades now."
so that kinda disqualifies your opinion...
@@ethanwasme4307 Not when you've read thousands of hours in dozens of versions.
I think both the story of the adulterous woman and the long ending of Mark are authentic.
My favorite is KJV. Second is NLT.
Wasn't Gordon Fee on the NIV committee??? His name wasn't mentioned.
I don't think he was on the committee but on an advisory group. He certainly critiqued massive errors in the earlier NIV and they listened. E.g.. 1 Corinthians 7 in the original NIV was just so poor. As for myself, I used to recommend people away from the NIV because of its inconsistent way it translated sarka as "sinful nature" which was deplorable. In the recent NIV it only appear twice and both in Romans 7. It's really like a new bible. Good revisions.
I was torn between ESV and NIV and one verse helped me pick NIV...I never got the verse until my NIV... John 1:18 ...those who say NIV takes away Jesus' Godhood?? Read JOHN 1:18 ...cant be more clear!!!
Exactly
We use the ESV at church but I use NIV for personal study. It's certainly helpful to be able to compare translations
Yes! I just started reading the NIV 2011 and I love that they clarified this verse
Did they answer why they changed Jesus from Gods only begotten Son to Gods one and only Son..because we are all children of God so why is this book saying we are not?
I believe the greek in that verse can say one and only son or only begotten son either rendering is correct in English, however I'm with you and think only begotten son is the better rendering.
Because some manuscripts say one and only son. Jesus is THE son of God you should not confuse this title
I don't think Gordon Fee was on the committee but on an advisory group. He certainly critiqued massive errors in the earlier NIV and they listened. E.g.. 1 Corinthians 7 in the original NIV was just so poor. As for myself, I used to recommend people away from the NIV because of its inconsistent way it translated sarka as "sinful nature" which was deplorable. In the recent NIV it only appear twice and both in Romans 7. It's really like a new bible. Good revisions. I'm a bit reserved about the influence of Douglas Moo on the committee. Gordon Fee would have been preferable esp. In translation of Romans 8:26 rather than Moo's influence. I'm an Anthropologist and we understand something translators don't always get.. that you have to have some common experience with the culture you are researching to understand what's being said. That's why Anthropologist spent some time living amongst the culture being researched. Of course that's not possible for a Biblical scholar today, but if a scholar shares a common experience with New Testament Christians they have some extra insight. Thats where Spirit-filled (tounges speaking including) scholars help.
I find it rather ironic that there is not one single contributor on that committee that is of the preterist perspective. Not even one!
Almost every question was not actually answered!
Are these claiming to be better than John Wycliffe and William Tyndale? No way! Do these guys know the Westcott and Hort's magic marker binge???
9:19 loved that 😄
Revelation 22:19
King James Version
*19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.*
Amen !!!!!
I'm am the kjv ONLY!!
Why is the King James exempt from this?
Try tree of life version now
Just read the NIV alongside the KJV and you will be good. The KJV is the proof text the NIV is to help clarify meaning on difficult passages. You will be surprised by how the NIV brings out more substantial meaning and sometimes the dynamic approach to translation gives the more literal meaning to what the original author intended.
Or just don’t read the satanic translation of the NIV.
Harrison Lang blasphemy! You are crazy if you think it’s satanic.
It's not the proof text, but I would agree that people should consider using more than one translation.
I read the NIV and the KJV! The KJV says that David slew Goliath! The NIV says differently!
@@DS-uo5ie out of interest, what verses are you comparing?
1984
Their fate is sealed.
WHY HAS THE NIV BEEN CHANGED,,,,,,,SO IT SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSIT OF THE KJV IN HUNDREDS OF KEY VERSES ?????? HUH ??????????
English changes. Not the meaning. Not the purpose. God bless
It’s a dynamic translation not a literal one. It still says the same.
Funnily enough "huh?" was the first thing that came into my head when I saw that comment 🤣
Seriously, what is wrong with a literal translation? A translation can be much more literal than the KJV, NASB, or ESV. I don't consider any of those translations all that literal despite their reputations as being literal. I find the ASV to be much more literal than any of today's popular translations. I wish someone would take the ASV, and update is slightly with info from the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe a few more updates based on recent scholarship and then leave it at that. Then produce it in a nice leather binding at a reasonable price on good paper, etc.
You literally just described the NASB. The NASB is an update of the ASV with info from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There's no such thing as a literal translation. This is a misnomer.
NIV is trash.
Snakes creeping in
Who killed Goliath... if your bible does not know then find a bible that does...
Which Goliath? If you don't know, then maybe you need to study the Bible before you get mouthy.
@@deanclouse3800 why are you so hostile all the time ? And you can't seem to admit when someone makes a valid point either. UA-cam comment area ='s ???
@@oldpreach, I treated him with the exact words he treated everyone else, and you think I'm hostile?
In my NIV it says David killed goliath.
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
2 Samuel 21:19 NIVUK
In my NIV David killed Goliath, so that killed your comment.
The only remaining true Protestant bible is the KJV...the NIV is far removed from what the KJV is...
KJV is not the standard
KJV is just another translation
They ruined the Bible translation. If they change it they need to call it something else. Everyone who memorized verses is now screwed.
Clearly, this translation is very methodical and deceiving like a serpent. If a gospel is changed as to take out the salvation, reconciliation of Christ and The God head is left out, what do you have?!!
My brilliant NIV tells me that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Not counting our sin against us for those who are in Christ. My brilliant NIV tells me that Jesus is the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. My brilliant NIV tells me that salvation is found in no one else but Jesus. My brilliant NIV tells me that the name of Jesus is the only name given to men by which we must be saved. The gospel message could not be clearer. It is obvious that you are a liar and the devil is behind your comment. Not surprising if you are KJV only. Because Satan is behind this cult too
Why dont you just stay with Gods true word rather than changing it and even taking out verses .and say they put them somewhere else. this niv seems to be the only 1 that does that . niv is thought for thought
Try understanding that verses are not left out. If they are not where you are familiar with seeing them, search and see why. There are several good reasons for this. Judging every bible against what you feel is the correct one is just wrong. There is a much bigger picture than that.
What is God's "true word"? It can't be the KJV, because that is only four hundred years old. Also it is a translation, therefore not inspired. So where is the "true word"?
@@samlawrence2695 The NIV is Thought for Thought ,
@@samlawrence2695 look up KJV 1611
@@gregtowle8830 So what is your point? No doctrine is changed. The NIV is stronger on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit than the KJV ever was. God is using it and blessing it to bring many to Christ. No one who uses the KJV has anything superior to me. No matter what ridiculous and ludicrous claims made by the KJV only cult. The gospel is about Christ and him crucified not some archaic imperfect uninspired translation of scripture.