The gender neutral language in the 2011 NIV isn't a problem for me, but even as a woman, masculine pronouns used for the generic singular have never bothered me. It may be associated with Spanish being my first language, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal. To be honest, people in other parts of the world, especially in countries where the romance languages are used, are amazed sometimes at how Americans are obsessed with being gender neutral.
That's simply the nature of languages that are different. I don't advocate for gender accuracy in Spanish translations simply because Spanish continues to use masculine oriented words when speaking of all people. English doesn't anymore in common language of which the NIV aims to be. I translate sermons and as a result, when the preacher uses "hermanos" to refer to all people in the congregation, I use "brothers and sisters", as this is the most accurate representation while speaking to a modern audience. As a result of my current experience in a bilingual setting, I do advocate for gender accurate translations of the Bible when context provides for it in English. I don't in Spanish since Spanish continues to be masculine oriented in language.
My same thoughts. Spanish is my first language. I took French and koine Greek, all 3 languages are gendered. The NIV serves its purpose, it serves the modern, younger English well. I still read it sometimes, but it does hurt my sensibilities since I am old fashioned, so it is a hindrance to me.
@@allankempson6951 Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? If you or the person teaching you is using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. Just as there we're people who corrupted the Word of God. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be united by truth, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY. Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION, Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 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 THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15 JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? If you or the person teaching you is using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. Just as there we're people who corrupted the Word of God. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be united by truth, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY. Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION, Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 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 THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15 JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
I've used the NIV and KJV the most during my long life. I really like the NIV and I'm not going to give the NIV up. I believe that people should use the translation they feel most comfortable reading.
Well of the 2 yes. Others will get things wrong if you look into young Don he makes videos about all kinds of Godly stuff. The thing that makes nov and kjv the only valid ones I'd say is that they both are using literal translations form the actual old words you feel me?
@@NaderVaderYT So does the NASB and ESV, although those are both newer, post dead sea scrolls, so they arguably get things more accurate. For instance, look at KJV vs ESV Luke 2:14, the question of who gets peace on earth is a difference between an S in the Greek. The word Eudokia vs Eudokias. For the KJV times, we believed the original said Eudokias, which means that "peace on earth" goes to all men, but after the dead sea scrolls we believe that it actually says "Eudokia", which means God's peace goes to those "who have his favor". It's really interesting, but most literal seems to be NASB with ESV being second.
Every time I have started reading a different translation I read the translation philosophy. Ok just my opinion but I believe that if the KJV only took on board what the translation to readers actually says we would find better things to argue about. The NIV is not my main translation I don’t hate it but I have actually used it to understand passages in the KJV. I have been brought up in the church my whole life and this was KJV I didn’t even know there were other versions out there until I was about 28 and although all my verse memory was KJV there is a difference between remember a verse and edification. When I bought a 90’s version of NIV I got some clarification which brought edification. We are in the time in some households they don’t even own a bible and entering the church only happens in marriages, deaths and births. Yes the KJV is truly amazing translation but it’s 410 years old. Nobody living talks like that (and if they do I want to meet them) and nobody thinks or writes emails using that type of English. Again the translators made it clear that language changes. If people can understand the word of God in the NIV then praise God if people get blessed and draw closer to the master in the KJV then praise God. I have even heard people say that people who read the NIV can’t be saved. Seriously do we need the enemy in the body we are devouring each other.
Always enjoy your discussions as you represent the topics in a clear and non-judge mental way. Basically, what really matters is that we read the Word, and if a certain translation resonates with you, then go for it.
I also have 3 copies of the 1984 NIV and love it. The 2011 has moved away to far from the more literal philosophy of the 84. I mostly use the ESV, but I still love the 84 NIV.
I'd love to see a video on the differences between the 1984 and the 2011 NIV bibles. I think it would be very helpful for those considering using this translation.
I have a beautiful king james , new king james , ESV but I always come back to my NIV. This is the translation that impacted me the most on my walk with Christ.
My daughter goes to a Christian school that uses the NIV. I was disapproving of this at first. Most just because of what I had heard about the NIV. It’s a liberal translation and so on. Part of her homework has always been copying and memorizing Bible verses. I have always made her read and repeat her Bible verses to me. Over the past 4 years we’ve been doing this and I would read the verses in my Bible to make sure she wasn’t being led astray. To my surprise though I have frequently noticed that the NIV is actually very good at presenting the meaning of the Bible in a very understandable and faithful way. I was wrong. The NIV in my opinion is a very good translation especially for kids to learn from and I don’t think it’s a liberal translation.
Very good overview to topic. Let me add some info… In Fall of 1978 when the whole bible NIV released, there is additional context of the times. KJV was still strong, generally the top new translation was NASB getting used as many Bible Colleges & Seminaries with the 1977 update. NKJV released in 1982. However, what was a BIG seller was the Living Bible as a bible very readable and great for outreach, but it’s biggest criticism was being a paraphrase. So, when the NIV released, it was embraced as an actually readable or understandable translation that is NOT a paraphrase. 2nd - I’ve found some of the criticism of NIV 2011 comes as a carryover criticism of the previously released TNIV (now out of print). Plus - in my opinion the 2011 update was mostly from a generational change in the English language. So, in some respect the 1984 was the English of the Baby Boomers, and 2011 the English of those after the Baby Boomers, resulting in what individuals depending on their age preferred or felt more like themselves in understanding.
I grew up on NIV, heard a lot of the criticisms, deep dived into them and quite honestly have been alleviated of any concerns and believe God cleared any confusion out of it for me. Love it again. He inspires and speaks to me through it everyday and I supplement with KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB. I love my Giant Print Thinline in Buffalo leather from Zondervan.
The NIV came out about the time I began my walk with the Lord and was my first Bible. Used it for many years until I was drawn to more "word-for -word" translations such as the NASB. Even though it's not my main "go to" translation, I have come full circle and am reading it more and more and really enjoying it.
Great video! I have been using the NIV Study Bible for a couple of months. I use a variety of translations/versions of the Bible to get different perspectives. I remember when the NIV Study Bible came out there were not hardly any study bibles save the NIV. Keep up with the wonderful content. God bless you!
The NIV has also been accused of being too simplistic in its wording, i.e, it downsizes the several meanings a single hebrew word can have by choosing just one word, and then not caring enough about other connotations of the source word (according to some). But that is most likely because it is dynamic, and the literal translation fan club dislikes that. Anyway, quite an eye-opener that a lot of its hate is because it has been so successful. Great video :)
I primarily use the NKJV, KJV, and ESV, but I've warmed to the NIV and NLT because they are so easy to read and understand, especially when trying to encourage bible reading among nominal church members.
@@tonimccoy9778 what I don't like about the NLT is its inclusion of the questionable addition to 1 Samuel 10, and its "multiple choice" approach to the ending of Mark's gospel. This, however, is a moot issue for me, since I've switched to using the KJV exclusively, but to each their own.
The 84 version was a very good translation. Reading it now I wonder what all the fuss was about. When I got saved in 86, most people in my circle were KJV people. Anything different was just not right to them. All the arguments from back then would seem silly now in light of the acceptance of the ESV. No other translation can boast the level of scholarship represented on the NIV translation team that's for sure.
Good Video Brother! I was a die hard 1984 NIV user. I’m now using the CSB more than anything else, but I recognize that a majority of Christians are going to end up with an NIV in their hands. Especially if they are a new convert. If they just go to the store and get a Bible it is likely going to be a NIV. The Bible sales even support this.
I wish the CSB were as common in stores as the NIV. But I am still happy that people will have a reliable, readable translation in their hands either way.
@@AFrischPerspective I work in a Christian bookstore, and the NIV is definitely a better seller than the CSB. However, I recommend the CSB as often as I can.
I’ve read cover to cover KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, AMP more times than I can remember. And guess what? They’re all wonderful and you won’t go wrong no matter which one you prefer 👍😁
I still have my 1978 NIV, single column. black letter text, genuine cowhide, in British tan leather. It's still one of my favorites, although I, like many others, grew up on the KJV, which I will always love. I think that one of the problems that many, including myself have with all the many Bible versions, is that most of us have a tendency to compare every version with the KJV, as if that's the standard by which all other versions should be compared to, at least in English. But I'm not sure if even the translators of the KJV would agree with this. I think the standard should be the original languages that the Bible was written in. I'm not saying that it's wrong to compare how one version reads compared to another one, but in our comparing, we should always ask if what we're reading accurately translates what the Biblical writers wrote in the languages they wrote in. I believe that the Bible is truly " God breathed", so I would hope that any translation of the Bible would reflect that God breathed inspiration as much as possible. I use many English versions, as I'm sure most of you do as well. I believe the translators of the KJV would approve of this. If you've ever read the "Translators to the Reader", which is still in the front of many KJV's, you would see that they encouraged the readers of their day to read from many translations. The main thing is that, whichever version one reads from, we must live by it, because, as the KJV translators wrote, " Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession( for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." I particularly like the way the NIV reads in 1st Corinthians 8:1, where it says, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." And in 1st Corinthians 13:4-11, " Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Everything else is just commentary. God bless and enjoy reading your Bible, regardless of which version you use, and most of all, live by it, the word of God.
As long as someone is reading a major translation (not paraphrase), I don’t care which they read! Just read it! Too many people who identify as Christians never read the Bible. I’d be happy to have them read the NIV!
After buying a KJV unsuccessfully years ago, I bought the NIV and it was perfect for me. I still love my NIV and it’s still my main reading Bible but I have an ESV which I use regularly as well. My CSB, NKJV, NLT and NASB are used more for study, comparison and the NLT for simple understanding with more difficult verses but I love love love my NIV because it’s the version that spoke to me and brought me closer to the Lord.
Your missing out on a lot of scripture that's in the KJV that's not in others. Also the KJV would say something like tractor the others would downplay and say 🛞 tire. Others downplay God's grace and mercy. It's like trying to turn a yaught vs a jet ski. I love the KJV but I do use others as helps
Thanks for this video about why the NIV is "hated". I bought a book titled Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible by Keith Piper.The author of this book visited our church an independent baptist church in Philippines.The author as far I know is a KJVonly pastor.Personally I believe that this " hate" or criticism against NIV come from militant fundamentalist.I know because in my early years as a christian I was exposed to this group who are KJVonlyist and who have a ministry for lack of words I would described as discernment and in their publication one will read most faults,compromised,ecumenical promoting the building of one world religion etc.One of the reasons I subscribed to your channel is your being positive,balanced and zero negative comment on people and ministries you disagree with.So from being a KJV only I became KJV preferred but like to read the NASV,NIV,ESV,NKJV,NLT and ERV for comparison and understanding.
Idk, I've always found the use of "they" to be quite confusing when used to refer to the generic singular. It also seems to me as if the word's being shoehorned in to fullfil a purpose it doesn't really fit. I've always used "he" and so does pretty much everyone else I know. I think it's much more important to keep the unambiguos distinction between singular and plural rather than to be more clear when it is that we're using a generic singular as opposed to a specific singular.
In speech, many people, including myself, will often use a singular "they," but in writing I still use singular pronouns. I prefer the distinction, especially in writing. But I believe that writing norms are starting to change as well.
Frankly, English should have a pronoun that is non-gender-specific. In lieu of that, "they" has stepped in for many speakers to fill that role. In casual speech I don't have a problem with it. But in a formal document like a Bible translation I find it extremely annoying because I know it's not right. The NIV translators should have known better.
@@AFrischPerspective the NIV of today is a “woke” translation and I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Better translations are the NAS, ESV and the NKJV. The original NIV is ok but my preference is still a word for word translation
@@AFrischPerspective to me this is a comparable to sticking a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. Eventually the frog will be boiled and he won’t even know it happened. I see the 2011 version being the same type of thing
I honestly prefer the 1984 version of the NIV. I use it often. My absolute favorite is the NLT. I have a concentration issue and I would be lost without the NLT. It's not a comprehension problem it's a visualization issue that I struggle with. When I read the NLT or NIV I can really see what I'm reading in my head. It helps when I'm doing my personal bible reading. When I'm doing in depth study I usually use the ESV.
I agree with Allen Frisch. I have never cared for the NIV, but I think Allen put into words how I feel about it. I have never cared for the flow of words and sometimes done in a clumsy manner. Loved the review! ❤️✝️
I prefer the NIV more than the others.. maybe because I’m so used to it. I have found most of the criticism is unjustified and unreasonable… I think the more you know about translation and all it’s complications.. the more you realise these criticisms have little or no basis
My pastor uses the NIV 2011. For use of a translation to clearly expresses the gospel, then it hits the mark. But in a lot of ways- bible translation is a competitive field. And if you can make a well selling translation appear unreliable- then any marketing tool will be used. But interesting enough is the KJV is still a second place seller , 410 years after its presentation.
Tim, when I first started listening to your channel ( which I did because you aren't yelling all the time), I was an NASB enthusiast. It was the most accurate. The Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast ( and their fellow podcasters) have opened my eyes to the KJV-ONLY crowd. Bill Mounce ( first involved with the ESV, and later the NIV) said the reason for the NIV was a businessman trying to witness to a friend by reading from the KJV. The friend laughed and said, "You expect me to understand that?" The NIV was born from a desire to read the Bible in the language of common, recent use. Bill Mounce tells a personal story ( name withheld) of a professor friend who lectures at seminaries. He came to faith during a Campus Crusade gathering.....and Campus Crusade used the NASB. His friend memorized the NASB. He now uses the NET....but during a lecture you could see his reaching back in memory to the NASB. John the Baptist said he wasn't worthy to reach down and untie the THONG of his sandal. The audience was polite....but Bill Mounce told his friend, "You had better not ever mention untying anyone's thong again." Words change in meaning. The bottom line: The translations are trustworthy.
@@hamerac, there’s a type of sandal called a thong sandal, because the leather strap goes through the toes. I guess that’s just not the type of “thong” that immediately comes to the minds of most people today when they read or hear the word “thong”, thanks to tv, movies, and Victoria’s Secret. It would have been prior to a couple decades ago though, to most people anyway.
Thanks for your respectful & insightful assessment of the NIV. I happen to own the 1984 edition, the 2005 TNIV and now the 2011 update. My only disappointment in your critique is referring to the NIV as a "more dynamic" translation. In the Preface, under Translation Philosophy the NIV is referred to as a "Mediating" translation. When they find there is good parallel syntax from original languages they use them. Otherwise they utilize syntax appropriate to the meaning. They strike a good balance between formal equivalence and functional equivalence. Would love to hear you bring this out, and not perpetuate the myth of the NIV being "dynamic." Thank you.
I would disagree with your prof but the NIV is OK. The NASB and NKJV are far more literal than the NIV. Although being literal is not always best and the NIV is one of the most accurate.
I use the NIV with a literal translation side by side. I have always done this. It seems to help me understand a scripture. To compare a literal and dynamic equivalent bible translation of scripture. I use other translations that are dynamic equivalent with my KJV or NKJV but since I grew up on the NIV I keep coming back to using it as my dynamic equivalent bible translation I use.
Thank you Tim for your explanation of the NIV. I had been a little bit skeptical of the NIV in the past because of other people's comments on it but I'm starting to feel more comfortable with it now. I was gifted an NIV in 2005, it was the Rainbow NIV and I have not really taken the time to really dig into it. But now after watching your video I feel that I need to give it a chance. Blessing to you.
I would add a sixth criticism of the NIV that’s pretty common: the NIV is written using a significantly less sophisticated vocabulary than many other translations. There are certainly pros and cons to this fact, but the NIV requires a much lower reading level than many other English versions. Also, my personal opinion is that the NIV lacks a certain flow found in the KJV, NKJV, ESV, CSB, and other superior translations. I find it to use many phrases that are stilted and awkward.
@@aperson4057 If you want to see "less sophisticated," look at the EasyEnglish Bible. They translated the entire Bible using a vocabulary of only 1200 words! The results are arguably poor though. I regard it more as a paraphrase than a true translation.
Hi brother. Love your channel 🙌. I grew up on the NIV. It is easy to read. The Lord had me lead a bible study for about 3 years. I did use different translations while preparing to get a good understanding of what the Lord gave for the study that week, and even tried in my daily reading to try other translations. KJ I would need a dictionary lol, new living to me was, I don’t know if watered down is the right word, I just didn’t get anything from it. The main reason I’m writing is, I have been told by KJ only ppl that I would not be able to witness to anyone with the NIV. Very discouraging to hear this. I didn’t stop reading it just prayed the Lord would help those ppl out. I now also use the NASB 95, I’ve been taught how important little words such as, they, for, but, even ‘so’ are important . I did notice that NIV doesn’t start some sentences with these words. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Keep up the good work the the Lord has set for you. Shalom and blessing brother!
my first experience of non kjv was @1958 in sunday school when we were reading verses in class and one boy had different words than mine (he was using an rsv). when the nasb came out i bought one (early 70's) and caught some grief from some friends and was turned down for a pastoral calling. when niv came out i bought one and the more i read the more i liked. it has some good renderings in places, but the one i use now is hcsb/csb, nasb/lsb (legacy), and 1967 scofield kjv/nkjv. one translation might be adequate but why not enjoy the blessings of multi translations. if the kjv had updated maybe we would not be having this conversation. it's not kjv that is the problem but the small group of kjv ONLY that attacks the one that has led to its losing its place
NIV is my go to study translation. Partly because I've invested in some good study Bibles (Life Application & Thompson Chain) that are NIV, but also because it reminds me of school/proper English as if I was writing a proper letter to a business vs a quick note to a friend.
I've heard some say the term "gender accurate" is more fitting than "gender neutral." I think I agree, and for a more dynamic translation I don't mind at all. NIV was my first Bible, and praise God for it. Thanks for the video.
Our Lord Jesus commanded us to translate His Word into every language that everyone may know what God requires. Mathew28:20 God does not require us to know Hebrew and Greek. I'm glad God put the cookies on the bottom shelf for us.
What bothers me the most about the NIV (and most modern versions) is the removal of verses and words. Then again, I'm inclined to stick with TR Bibles.
An argument in favour of their removal is that older manuscripts found after the TR don't contain them. Scholars conclude they were additions to the original texts so they belong to footnotes. Not that I agree with that, but that's what I often hear in favour of the CT.
why did the NIV 2011 add the ending of paragraph 5:21 to the beginning of 5:22 in Ephesians and change the meaning all my other translation Nasb95 Esv Lsb nkjv and Niv 1990 split Ephesians 5:21 an 5:22 ...it seems like the niv is missleading at times compared to my other translations
Your explanation helped confirm some of the reasons I dislike the NIV (Nearly Inspired Version LOL). I wouldn't care about it if it wasn't popular but because it's so popular it needs to scrutinized.
Many people forget that the KJV isn't the original text, it was merely the first time we translated the original text into English. That doesn't make the KJV any better/perfect than other translations. All translations are just that... A translation.
The KJV you know today was not "the first time we translated the original text into English". I really recommend every Christian watch the documentary series "a lamp in the dark". It's the history of the English bible and where we're going based on history. I have it saved in my created playlists on my channel. A brother emptied his retirement account to produce this.
As I recall, They put out the TNIV that was very liberal in some areas and almost nobody liked it. People that did like the 1984 NIV said we will stick with it. The publishers pulled the TNIV and said they would leave the NIV alone. They then put out the 2011 update with some of the wording from the TNIV that people didn't like and that upset a lot of people because they felt they were lied to by the publisher.
@@AFrischPerspective For that period of time as I believe you mentioned there was a lot of controversy over gender inclusive language. It was a very liberal idea to many at that time to use that type of language. I believe that is the main reason the TNIV was rejected. It is more acceptable in this day then it was at the time.
There was also an NIVI (inclusive language edition) back in 1996. Zondervan was not the publisher for that one though, and I don't believe it was ever sold in the States. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version_Inclusive_Language_Edition
I like the NIV translation, but like others more. I read through the NIV and, for me, others read better. But I think that's because I grew up listening to mostly KJV readings. Great presentation, thanks. I use whatever translation is being used at church for my main Bible, but at home read others as well. This year NKJV.
My problem with the NIV is word choice. My first copy of the NIV used the word ‘doctor’ instead of ‘physician’. I think the recent versions still use ‘doctor’. A doctor is someone who has been awarded a doctor’s degree. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to call Luke a physician. A physician is someone who practices the art of healing. That is how we know Luke. The word ‘doctor’ covers other disciplines.
Just like it calls "strong drink" "beer" in Proverbs. I don't think Solomon knew what beer was and when most people think of beer today it's certainly not as a strong drink.
@@Birdie_ not entirely true. Ancient Egypt was brewing a form of beer thousands of years ago. It might not be a Bud like we have today, but they definitely had beer during the era of Solomon
@@Mackedo5 Maybe, but it wasn't a widespread drink. Also the texts surely don't read "beer" and the point of it not being a strong drink for most of us today still stands; it fails to convey the idea of a strong drink to its broad audience. There was no reason to call it beer at all.
@@Birdie_: NOT only in Proverbs... :-/ 1 Sam 1:15 (NIV 1984) 15 "Not so, my lord," Hannah replied, "I am a woman who is deeply troubled. I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the LORD. Pro 20:1 (NIV 1984) 1 Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. Pro 31:4 (NIV 1984) 4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, Pro 31:6 (NIV 1984) 6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; Isa 24:9 (NIV 1984) 9 No longer do they drink wine with a song; the beer is bitter to its drinkers. Isa 28:7 (NIV 1984) 7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. Isa 29:9 (NIV 1984) 9 Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless; be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer. Isa 56:12 (NIV 1984) 12 "Come," each one cries, "let me get wine! Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better." Mic 2:11 (NIV 1984) 11 If a liar and deceiver comes and says, `I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,` he would be just the prophet for this people!
I have used the NIV, but went to the ESV since my church used this version. However, the newest version that has been fully revised has me curious about what text has been revised Is it still gender neutral? How does this newest version compare to the ESV? Thanks
I read both the NIV and KJV and enjoy both very much. I hear a lot about missing versus in the NIV and I understand the reasoning behind it and I happed to agree with this reassigning. My questions is, are there any verses ADDED by the NIV that are not in the KJV?
Two resources for the NIV that I have found very valuable. Although no longer in print, Cambridge produced a giant print New Testament of the 1984 edition in a green hard back. It is single column on very nice paper with very large text. It is an absolute joy to read. There are still a few copies of it on Ebay. Second, through my Audbile account, I came across a fabulous NIV audio bible narrated by David Suchet. IMHO he is one the best narrators I have ever heard. I would put him in the same league as David Cochrane Heath who narrates the ESV. I have been using the NKJV for many years and had forgotten just how clear and readable the NIV is.
I like the NIV but not very much. It's very comprehensible but some replaced words are anachronistic. Like calling strong drink "beer," a physician "doctor," Paul making a reference to boxing (sport), and some others I can't remember at the moment but truly shocked me. Also, it has unnecessary euphemisms here and there; it really tries to be family-friendly. It surely gets the point across but it is inconsistent with history and scripture. I only read it at church because most people there seem to use it. I prefer the NKJV.
@@sorenpx "Doctor" is a title of someone who has a doctorate degree. They are not synonyms. Not all doctors are medical doctors. All physicians are doctors, not all medical doctors are physicians. Also there was no doctorate title back then. I get they want to make the text easier to understand but this choice of word is not only anachronistic but makes no sense.
@@Birdie_ I understand your point but the context, just as it does in any other English usage, makes it clear that we are speaking of a medical doctor and not an academic. Let's not forget that the Bible wasn't written in English at all and the English language did not exist in any form at that time, so in this sense the use of "physician" OR "doctor" is going to be anachronistic. Furthermore, in contemporary society, if you say to someone "He's a doctor," who among us will first jump to the meaning of someone with a PhD? I would think that only someone who speaks English as a second language might do that. It's like the old saying, "Is there a doctor in the house?" Everyone instinctively knows you're talking about a medical doctor. In any case, to avoid any possibility of confusion, perhaps physician would be better. But that doesn't mean "doctor" is wrong or a bad translation or even anachronistic, as you have said.
@@sorenpx Hm. Yeah, this is my second language and calling a medical professional a doctor is rare here. I suppose it's a bit strange to me. Nevertheless, out of the two, I think "physician" is better because "doctor" is a title that didn't exist at all but practical medicine, the job of physicians, did. The occupation was the same as today and we have a word for it; there was no doctorate title back then and thereby no good reason to use "doctor" in a historical document. Sure the NIV wants to be readable but this is only one of the several choices I've found that don't suit the context because we already have very simple yet very accurate words to describe those terms. For those solid reasons I still believe choosing "doctor" is anachronistic and "physician" appropriate in every sense.
@@Birdie_ I'd still push back and say that "anachronistic" isn't really correct, but I'll be happy to concede this much: Since it's clearly a point of confusion among English speakers in certain regions of the world, perhaps physician would be a better choice in order to avoid that confusion. Admittedly, I am speaking from an American/Western perspective. I can say that at least in this region of the world, when we read in Mark 9 that "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick," it doesn't sound strange and there's no confusion over whether Jesus is talking about a medical doctor or an academic. However, you have convinced me that in other regions the word "doctor" may not be immediately understood in the same way. I will actually point out that, at least here, to use "doctor" to mean someone who is NOT a medical doctor is the more unusual usage. Typically to avoid confusion it would instead be said that "he holds a doctorate" or there would be some other designator to make it clear that we're not talking about medicine, because a medical doctor is the immediate assumption.
Great video! You explained the criticisms of the NIV well. It is my belief that any serious Bible student should read multiple translations. I use NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, MEV, and LSB. All have their merits. I really don’t understand the conflict that seems to pop up. We as believers of Jesus are called to become more like Him. There simply is no time to waste on division over things that do not help us to that end.
I have a question about the NIV that no one seems to be talking about when I do a search online. On Luke 16:6, I checked the TR and Critical text original Greek and surely enough they are the same here as the ESV and NKJV respectively but the NIV gives units in gallons. Where did they get this conversion rate? I see one bath as 6 gallons but I dont see any liquid units converting as 1:9 to gallons anywhere
15 years ago I was reborn and saved in the NIV study Bible and I still have that Bible to this day 15 years later and I also read different translations of the Bible and now that I am a pastor I preach from the NIV Bible because that is the scripture where I learned from to memorize versus.
Nice video... My church uses the KJV as the main bible, but since English is not our language, I must admit that some passages in the KJV is a little hard for me to comprehend. And everytime the passage from the KJV becomes confusing to me, I always grab the NIV and it explains it very well. The only issue for me regarding the NIV, are the missing verses. But all in all, it's a beautiful translation.
I used it for years, I don't now, I use NKJV. I think I listened to too many haters, and what was said concerned me; missing words & verses, I didn't like that.
I was saved with an NIV I picked at random in a bible store 20 years ago. Have come to find out it’s the 1984 text. Apparently NIV has been degraded quite a bit since so I can’t speak to that, but the 1984 will always be good with me even though I’ve switched to the KJV.
Many non-Catholic bibles translate the very same Greek word for ‘tradition’ as ‘teachings’ when it’s unfavorable to the Protestants position- NIV- 2Thes 2:15 to name one. And squeezed in as a footnote seems less than forthcoming.
In my experience the people who bash the NIV are usually KJV Only people who are against any Bible that is not the KJV. I always found that one to be too difficult to understand with many outdated words which have completely different meanings today. The NIV is the Bible I read and bring to church now.
Since the church I belonged to did not have a Sunday night service, I at times attended an IFB KJV only church on Sunday nights occasionally because they had an excellent music program that I really enjoyed. At that time I carried a KJV/NIV Parallel Bible and learned something very interesting about the KJV Only pastor. He was extremely adamant about KJV Onlyism and always read from the KJV. But then he always followed it up with an “In other words” which was, yup, you guessed it, right out of the NIV. Very interesting. And this was not a one time incident, it was a habit repeated almost every sermon.
It’s weird.. I have several translations of the Bible, but have somehow missed the NIV…… I did buy my mother a copy, but have not bought one for myself, and probably won’t. I really don’t have anything against the NIV………except thst there have been too many “updates”… I don’t have cash a problem with individuals, or churches using the NIV……I just don’t feel the tneed to have one. Did any of thst make sense?
I have a Deacon in our church ( i am the pastor), he was raised on the kjv but started reading the Living Bible when it came out in 72. He says he believes everything he believed growing up on the kjv. Hes the only person ive ever met that exclusively uses the LB. I wonder if there are others.
I appreciate this video. Although I do own a handy size NIV TCR I do not favor NIV. I had no educated reason why other than perhaps it was because as a child everything was KJV and in Bible college my Bible lit professor insisted on NASB. I was a new Christian and other than passages I had memorized as a child in KJV, it was the version I learned as I truly began to explore Scripture. It is the version I prefer as it is what I am familiar with since Bible Lit 46 years ago. Sadly many of the new Bibles I would check out don’t come in NASB and other than KJV I get a little bit uncomfortable messing around with other versions. That doesn’t imply I think they are “wrong” just not comfortable. I wouldn’t get rid of my new handy NIV TCR as for the budget price I paid any TCR would be super and well worth having.
I’m a year late to the party but I can tell you why. I’ve heard more than one pastor from different denominations (using the 1984) stop their sermon and say “They (the translators) got this wrong,” then begin an explanation of why it’s wrong and make an on the spot correction. I only needed to hear that a few times to decide to kick it to the curb. Many say that the newest version has corrected those issues but what are the chances I’m going to switch back? Slim, very slim.
I love the NASB '95, The ASV and the HCSB . The HCSB is much better and flows better than the CSB.. I love the fact that the NASB and the HCSB captilizes all Deity words and makes Old Testament Prophecy in the New Testament in Caps or Bold.. It really speaks to me and jumps off the page to me when I read it.. I also really like verse by verse format which NASB and KJV are. I read KJV as well but not as much as the other 2 but I always compare them to it.
They are harder to find now but I like NIV '84. Too much updating makes me crazy and it is expensive to continue buying the latest greatest version. God bless ya'll really good.
I think using the word, they, in the context that we use it today to refer to a single person in a sentence, is fine to refer to a single person in the Bible, if applicable. I have never thought of that as being a gender neutral way of speaking myself. It just seems a natural way to talk, and I am a 52 year old woman. My very first, treasured, adult Bible that I bought myself was the NIV study Bible back in 1991 or 1992. I LOVED that Bible and there are highlights and notes all over it! I still have it. Most of my Bibles are the NIV translation. In fact, it has only been recently that I even knew there was criticism with the NIV translation. lol I think if a person is going to an in depth study so hard that it does matter about being as close to a word for word translation, then there are a few other translations that are better for that kind of study. However, for general reading, and study, and worship, I don't see an issue with the NIV Bible translation. I have not exhausted all the research on this issue of the NIV being criticized, but what I have learned, I think are people being nit picky. It is a great scholarly Bible translation for most things. If it isn't something that a certain person chooses to use, that is fine also. I don't see the need to criticize this translation so much. This is my opinion.
As an add on, I have not looked at the actual differences between the earlier translations and the 2011 translation. Is the 2011 translation the one everyone has an issue with? Hmmm, I am going to search and see what if I can find something that will highlight the difference between the 84 and 2011 NIV Bibles.
Thank you for addressing concerns some people have about the NIV. In my circle of friends, the NIV has been the predominate translation used for the most part. That said, that majority uses the 1984 update. As you said, the NIV 2011 is more gender inclusive and that is a problem for many traditionalists.
The NIV is simply good and lucid English. The inclusive language can be jarring, but it’s a relatively small problem now that I’ve actually started reading it.
Idc what anyone says I love the NIV! Unless you’re a KJV ONLY , I don’t see why you would not like it, if you like the ESV & NASB you shouldn’t hate it... I’ve heard people hate on NIV but like the NLT which makes 0 sense at all considering the NIV is more accurate
I think one of the NIVs reasons for love and hate depending on who you are is its low reading level. I'm not a scholar but if the nasb for example is among the most literal of translations that seems to indicate the niv is almost a readers digest version: something translated beneath the level of the original work so not a translation at all in a very strict sense. Now I wouldn't go that far but I could see the argument. Most I think is kjv only folks. Growing up kjv the niv was just the whipping boy of new translations. It was popular and it was easily recognizable as different so it was an easy target. On a side note being kjv preferred I'm still kinda shocked it's no 2 on the list of most popular. You wouldn't know it by the book stores or by most english speaking Christians you engage with . It seems only fundies (of which I am one technically) go with it. Every other church uses esv or something (I know the individual in the pew/chair might be using something different but the pastor will always be using something modern)
Hello Tim, I agree with you on the approach of wanting to make a easier to understand with current English speaking people, but hear is my concerns, their using the critical text which in my own studies I haven’t seen one expert in the language of the Greek explain in a good way as to why they use it in their preferences of modern bibles other then their older. And that means nothing to me. Older in this since doesn’t prove better or more accurate. Sorry they have give a better argument for this!
I grew up using the 1984 NIV, and agree it’s very readable. Once I got into deeper study, I found the NIV avoided some theological terms, so that got me looking at other translations, so I began using the NASB and now use the NKJV. Also, I understand the NIV is somewhat inconsistent, with some books being much better translated than others. However, I’m not expert enough to be sure. I still use it sometimes, and like it, but don’t use it for studying. I have been put off the NIV more recently by the marketing hype around it, and was shocked by the aggressive way the publisher tried to get rid of older editions after bringing out the 2011 edition. Commercialisation of the Bible is something I always find quite ugly and offensive.
The KJV is hard for me to read and doesn’t get my attention. I read the niv every day and gets straight to the point, easy to understand without the thou, hast, etc . Up to date for the English translation and God understands that the world changes .
I totally understand you but it's amazing because while, yes, you are right NIV is more straight to the point but aside from certain passages, having been raised up using the kjv I would say 9/10 times the kjv is perfectly clear to me and just as a matter of taste much preferred and comes off feeling sharper or richer in its expression. But that a totally subjective claim. I don't think my understanding it more clearly is because I'm smart just what a person is used to.
I have a dozen or so study Bibles. Three are based on the NIV and they are produced by great scholars. My favorite is the Zondervan NIV Study Bible edited by D A Carson. This is a tremendous resource for any serious Bible student. Does anyone else like this Bible?
Tim, are "HOLMAN HCSB" Bibles still available? Not CSB , but HCSB. I believe Southern Baptist were involved in the style and Theological structure of it? Any helpful information would be great!
The HCSB is no longer in print, but there are plenty of them still out there. The translation was printed by the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it was produced by a team of more than 100 scholars from 17 denominations.
@@AFrischPerspective Thank you Tim. I actually like it over the "CSB". Is there a specific way to search for it so that you don't just get CSB but you get HCSB because CSB is still Holman. Correct?
@@mitchady9338 "Owned by a denomination". How so? He did not say it was owned by a particular denomination did he? I prefer NASB over anything actually and read it the most.
Thank you for this video. I have decided on the NIV translation, but now I’m on the fence between the NIV study Bible and Starting Place study bible. I’m sure at some point I will get both but I have a limited budget. Any suggestions?
My only disagreement with your videos, which I appreciate very much, is your use of the word “literal” because none of us has anything that comes close to a literal Bible as we understand the term. Scholars mean something different by their use of that word. For example, in Psalm 16:7 the psalmist says that his kidneys instruct him. Try to find a Bible that uses the word “kidney”. That kind of stuff is everywhere. If any of us actually had a literal Bible we wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of it. To your credit you have touched on this a few times. I think it would be helpful if you did a video just on the meaning of the word “literal” as scholars use it. Otherwise, well done as always.
A big difference occurs in Rom 1.17. NKJ has ' For in it the righteousness of God is revealed' whereas NIV has 'a righteousness from God is revealed'. The NIV has essentially translated the Lutheran reading of Rom 1.17.
#6) Misconceptions of what "translation" is about. People who have no experience in translation often have misguided expectations and perceptions of what "translation" does and accomplishes. One of the most common examples of this is the phrase "I don't want my translators to make 'interpretations' for me." Anyone saying this demonstrates that they do not understand the very basics of "translation".
I’m a big fan of the NIV and I recommend it to many people that it’s better suited for. There are some issues in the NIV that I can’t get around. For example Jeremiah 50:37 (NIV): 37 A sword against her horses and chariots and all the foreigners in her ranks! They will become weaklings. A sword against her treasures! They will be plundered. Isaiah 19:16 has the same issue. The “literal” word for weaklings is women. It seems as though they replaced this to make it more palatable to the modern ear. I really hope you respond to this Tim. I genuinely love this translation but this rendering of the text makes me feel uneasy.
The gender neutral language in the 2011 NIV isn't a problem for me, but even as a woman, masculine pronouns used for the generic singular have never bothered me. It may be associated with Spanish being my first language, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal. To be honest, people in other parts of the world, especially in countries where the romance languages are used, are amazed sometimes at how Americans are obsessed with being gender neutral.
That's simply the nature of languages that are different. I don't advocate for gender accuracy in Spanish translations simply because Spanish continues to use masculine oriented words when speaking of all people. English doesn't anymore in common language of which the NIV aims to be. I translate sermons and as a result, when the preacher uses "hermanos" to refer to all people in the congregation, I use "brothers and sisters", as this is the most accurate representation while speaking to a modern audience. As a result of my current experience in a bilingual setting, I do advocate for gender accurate translations of the Bible when context provides for it in English. I don't in Spanish since Spanish continues to be masculine oriented in language.
My same thoughts. Spanish is my first language. I took French and koine Greek, all 3 languages are gendered. The NIV serves its purpose, it serves the modern, younger English well. I still read it sometimes, but it does hurt my sensibilities since I am old fashioned, so it is a hindrance to me.
gender nuetral is woke nonsense
The NIV causes me to literally visualize in my mind what I’m reading about. Love it.
That's a great thing!
well said.
Same here, that's why I love the NIV.
@@allankempson6951 Why Would Anyone Use The NIV?
If you or the person teaching you is using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. Just as there we're people who corrupted the Word of God. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be united by truth, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY.
Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION,
Revelation
22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 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 THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK.
GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15
JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV?
If you or the person teaching you is using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. Just as there we're people who corrupted the Word of God. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be united by truth, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY.
Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION,
Revelation
22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 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 THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK.
GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15
JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
I've used the NIV and KJV the most during my long life. I really like the NIV and I'm not going to give the NIV up. I believe that people should use the translation they feel most comfortable reading.
I agree with you, I don't get why people argue over it. I love the NIV, I always use it.
I agree with you an easy understand people talk different back then
As long you know God’s word you’re fine what’s important in life there’s know god word
Well of the 2 yes. Others will get things wrong if you look into young Don he makes videos about all kinds of Godly stuff. The thing that makes nov and kjv the only valid ones I'd say is that they both are using literal translations form the actual old words you feel me?
@@NaderVaderYT So does the NASB and ESV, although those are both newer, post dead sea scrolls, so they arguably get things more accurate. For instance, look at KJV vs ESV Luke 2:14, the question of who gets peace on earth is a difference between an S in the Greek. The word Eudokia vs Eudokias. For the KJV times, we believed the original said Eudokias, which means that "peace on earth" goes to all men, but after the dead sea scrolls we believe that it actually says "Eudokia", which means God's peace goes to those "who have his favor".
It's really interesting, but most literal seems to be NASB with ESV being second.
Every time I have started reading a different translation I read the translation philosophy. Ok just my opinion but I believe that if the KJV only took on board what the translation to readers actually says we would find better things to argue about. The NIV is not my main translation I don’t hate it but I have actually used it to understand passages in the KJV. I have been brought up in the church my whole life and this was KJV I didn’t even know there were other versions out there until I was about 28 and although all my verse memory was KJV there is a difference between remember a verse and edification. When I bought a 90’s version of NIV I got some clarification which brought edification. We are in the time in some households they don’t even own a bible and entering the church only happens in marriages, deaths and births. Yes the KJV is truly amazing translation but it’s 410 years old. Nobody living talks like that (and if they do I want to meet them) and nobody thinks or writes emails using that type of English. Again the translators made it clear that language changes. If people can understand the word of God in the NIV then praise God if people get blessed and draw closer to the master in the KJV then praise God. I have even heard people say that people who read the NIV can’t be saved. Seriously do we need the enemy in the body we are devouring each other.
Very well said!
Amen! I came out of kjv-onlyism over the last couple years. It’s so toxic
Thanks for your well thought of words of wisdom.
Always enjoy your discussions as you represent the topics in a clear and non-judge mental way. Basically, what really matters is that we read the Word, and if a certain translation resonates with you, then go for it.
I also have 3 copies of the 1984 NIV and love it. The 2011 has moved away to far from the more literal philosophy of the 84. I mostly use the ESV, but I still love the 84 NIV.
I'd love to see a video on the differences between the 1984 and the 2011 NIV bibles. I think it would be very helpful for those considering using this translation.
I have a beautiful king james , new king james , ESV but I always come back to my NIV. This is the translation that impacted me the most on my walk with Christ.
My daughter goes to a Christian school that uses the NIV. I was disapproving of this at first. Most just because of what I had heard about the NIV. It’s a liberal translation and so on. Part of her homework has always been copying and memorizing Bible verses. I have always made her read and repeat her Bible verses to me. Over the past 4 years we’ve been doing this and I would read the verses in my Bible to make sure she wasn’t being led astray. To my surprise though I have frequently noticed that the NIV is actually very good at presenting the meaning of the Bible in a very understandable and faithful way. I was wrong. The NIV in my opinion is a very good translation especially for kids to learn from and I don’t think it’s a liberal translation.
The TNIV that came right before the 2011 was the bad one. 2011 is good.
Very good overview to topic. Let me add some info…
In Fall of 1978 when the whole bible NIV released, there is additional context of the times. KJV was still strong, generally the top new translation was NASB getting used as many Bible Colleges & Seminaries with the 1977 update. NKJV released in 1982. However, what was a BIG seller was the Living Bible as a bible very readable and great for outreach, but it’s biggest criticism was being a paraphrase. So, when the NIV released, it was embraced as an actually readable or understandable translation that is NOT a paraphrase.
2nd - I’ve found some of the criticism of NIV 2011 comes as a carryover criticism of the previously released TNIV (now out of print).
Plus - in my opinion the 2011 update was mostly from a generational change in the English language. So, in some respect the 1984 was the English of the Baby Boomers, and 2011 the English of those after the Baby Boomers, resulting in what individuals depending on their age preferred or felt more like themselves in understanding.
I grew up on NIV, heard a lot of the criticisms, deep dived into them and quite honestly have been alleviated of any concerns and believe God cleared any confusion out of it for me. Love it again. He inspires and speaks to me through it everyday and I supplement with KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB. I love my Giant Print Thinline in Buffalo leather from Zondervan.
I think you’d appreciate a CSB, I feel it successfully outdated the NIV completely
@@narrowistheway77 Thanks, I have to pick up a CSB for sure, heard lots of good things about it.
l still have my 1st Bible, the NIV Study Bible. Though I now use the NASB, the NIV still gets looked at. It's a decent translation.
The NIV came out about the time I began my walk with the Lord and was my first Bible. Used it for many years until I was drawn to more "word-for -word" translations such as the NASB. Even though it's not my main "go to" translation, I have come full circle and am reading it more and more and really enjoying it.
Great video! I have been using the NIV Study Bible for a couple of months. I use a variety of translations/versions of the Bible to get different perspectives. I remember when the NIV Study Bible came out there were not hardly any study bibles save the NIV. Keep up with the wonderful content. God bless you!
Thank you!
The NIV has also been accused of being too simplistic in its wording, i.e, it downsizes the several meanings a single hebrew word can have by choosing just one word, and then not caring enough about other connotations of the source word (according to some). But that is most likely because it is dynamic, and the literal translation fan club dislikes that.
Anyway, quite an eye-opener that a lot of its hate is because it has been so successful. Great video :)
I primarily use the NKJV, KJV, and ESV, but I've warmed to the NIV and NLT because they are so easy to read and understand, especially when trying to encourage bible reading among nominal church members.
@rhenishHelm, agreed and further the NLT is extremely accurate. Too bad its unfairly attacked so much by its competitors. Blessings Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 what I don't like about the NLT is its inclusion of the questionable addition to 1 Samuel 10, and its "multiple choice" approach to the ending of Mark's gospel. This, however, is a moot issue for me, since I've switched to using the KJV exclusively, but to each their own.
The 84 version was a very good translation. Reading it now I wonder what all the fuss was about. When I got saved in 86, most people in my circle were KJV people. Anything different was just not right to them. All the arguments from back then would seem silly now in light of the acceptance of the ESV. No other translation can boast the level of scholarship represented on the NIV translation team that's for sure.
Good Video Brother! I was a die hard 1984 NIV user. I’m now using the CSB more than anything else, but I recognize that a majority of Christians are going to end up with an NIV in their hands. Especially if they are a new convert. If they just go to the store and get a Bible it is likely going to be a NIV. The Bible sales even support this.
I wish the CSB were as common in stores as the NIV. But I am still happy that people will have a reliable, readable translation in their hands either way.
@@AFrischPerspective me too brother! I love the CSB but the CSB and the NIV compliment each other very well
@@AFrischPerspective I work in a Christian bookstore, and the NIV is definitely a better seller than the CSB. However, I recommend the CSB as often as I can.
@@lucaslawrence761 I'm not surprised to hear this. Glad you are promoting the CSB, though!
2nd on the CSB! I'm a CSB onlyist!! Hahaha! Jk
I’ve read cover to cover KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, AMP more times than I can remember. And guess what? They’re all wonderful and you won’t go wrong no matter which one you prefer 👍😁
ua-cam.com/video/mBOfznqMZq8/v-deo.html
As long as it's not the passion lol
I agree, I read all these versions with much profit. The AMP is very helpful in certain places.
I still have my 1978 NIV, single column. black letter text, genuine cowhide, in British tan leather. It's still one of my favorites, although I, like many others, grew up on the KJV, which I will always love. I think that one of the problems that many, including myself have with all the many Bible versions, is that most of us have a tendency to compare every version with the KJV, as if that's the standard by which all other versions should be compared to, at least in English. But I'm not sure if even the translators of the KJV would agree with this. I think the standard should be the original languages that the Bible was written in. I'm not saying that it's wrong to compare how one version reads compared to another one, but in our comparing, we should always ask if what we're reading accurately translates what the Biblical writers wrote in the languages they wrote in. I believe that the Bible is truly " God breathed", so I would hope that any translation of the Bible would reflect that God breathed inspiration as much as possible. I use many English versions, as I'm sure most of you do as well. I believe the translators of the KJV would approve of this. If you've ever read the "Translators to the Reader", which is still in the front of many KJV's, you would see that they encouraged the readers of their day to read from many translations. The main thing is that, whichever version one reads from, we must live by it, because, as the KJV translators wrote, " Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession( for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." I particularly like the way the NIV reads in 1st Corinthians 8:1, where it says, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." And in 1st Corinthians 13:4-11, " Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Everything else is just commentary. God bless and enjoy reading your Bible, regardless of which version you use, and most of all, live by it, the word of God.
As long as someone is reading a major translation (not paraphrase), I don’t care which they read! Just read it! Too many people who identify as Christians never read the Bible. I’d be happy to have them read the NIV!
After buying a KJV unsuccessfully years ago, I bought the NIV and it was perfect for me. I still love my NIV and it’s still my main reading Bible but I have an ESV which I use regularly as well. My CSB, NKJV, NLT and NASB are used more for study, comparison and the NLT for simple understanding with more difficult verses but I love love love my NIV because it’s the version that spoke to me and brought me closer to the Lord.
Your missing out on a lot of scripture that's in the KJV that's not in others. Also the KJV would say something like tractor the others would downplay and say 🛞 tire. Others downplay God's grace and mercy. It's like trying to turn a yaught vs a jet ski. I love the KJV but I do use others as helps
Thanks for this video about why the NIV is "hated". I bought a book titled Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible by Keith Piper.The author of this book visited our church an independent baptist church in Philippines.The author as far I know is a KJVonly pastor.Personally I believe that this " hate" or criticism against NIV come from militant fundamentalist.I know because in my early years as a christian I was exposed to this group who are KJVonlyist and who have a ministry for lack of words I would described as discernment and in their publication one will read most faults,compromised,ecumenical promoting the building of one world religion etc.One of the reasons I subscribed to your channel is your being positive,balanced and zero negative comment on people and ministries you disagree with.So from being a KJV only I became KJV preferred but like to read the NASV,NIV,ESV,NKJV,NLT and ERV for comparison and understanding.
Idk, I've always found the use of "they" to be quite confusing when used to refer to the generic singular. It also seems to me as if the word's being shoehorned in to fullfil a purpose it doesn't really fit. I've always used "he" and so does pretty much everyone else I know.
I think it's much more important to keep the unambiguos distinction between singular and plural rather than to be more clear when it is that we're using a generic singular as opposed to a specific singular.
In speech, many people, including myself, will often use a singular "they," but in writing I still use singular pronouns. I prefer the distinction, especially in writing. But I believe that writing norms are starting to change as well.
Frankly, English should have a pronoun that is non-gender-specific. In lieu of that, "they" has stepped in for many speakers to fill that role. In casual speech I don't have a problem with it. But in a formal document like a Bible translation I find it extremely annoying because I know it's not right. The NIV translators should have known better.
@@AFrischPerspective the NIV of today is a “woke” translation and I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Better translations are the NAS, ESV and the NKJV. The original NIV is ok but my preference is still a word for word translation
@@rhm5158 I understand what you are getting at, but "woke" is a mischaracterization, or overstatement about the changes in the NIV.
@@AFrischPerspective to me this is a comparable to sticking a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. Eventually the frog will be boiled and he won’t even know it happened. I see the 2011 version being the same type of thing
I honestly prefer the 1984 version of the NIV. I use it often. My absolute favorite is the NLT. I have a concentration issue and I would be lost without the NLT. It's not a comprehension problem it's a visualization issue that I struggle with. When I read the NLT or NIV I can really see what I'm reading in my head. It helps when I'm doing my personal bible reading. When I'm doing in depth study I usually use the ESV.
I agree with Allen Frisch. I have never cared for the NIV, but I think Allen put into words how I feel about it. I have never cared for the flow of words and sometimes done in a clumsy manner. Loved the review! ❤️✝️
I prefer the NIV more than the others.. maybe because I’m so used to it.
I have found most of the criticism is unjustified and unreasonable… I think the more you know about translation and all it’s complications.. the more you realise these criticisms have little or no basis
My pastor uses the NIV 2011. For use of a translation to clearly expresses the gospel, then it hits the mark. But in a lot of ways- bible translation is a competitive field. And if you can make a well selling translation appear unreliable- then any marketing tool will be used. But interesting enough is the KJV is still a second place seller , 410 years after its presentation.
My criticism of the 2011 update is they made it more like the NLT, backing away from what I would call THE middle ground.
Tim, when I first started listening to your channel ( which I did because you aren't yelling all the time), I was an NASB enthusiast. It was the most accurate. The Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast ( and their fellow podcasters) have opened my eyes to the KJV-ONLY crowd. Bill Mounce ( first involved with the ESV, and later the NIV) said the reason for the NIV was a businessman trying to witness to a friend by reading from the KJV. The friend laughed and said, "You expect me to understand that?" The NIV was born from a desire to read the Bible in the language of common, recent use.
Bill Mounce tells a personal story ( name withheld) of a professor friend who lectures at seminaries. He came to faith during a Campus Crusade gathering.....and Campus Crusade used the NASB. His friend memorized the NASB. He now uses the NET....but during a lecture you could see his reaching back in memory to the NASB. John the Baptist said he wasn't worthy to reach down and untie the THONG of his sandal. The audience was polite....but Bill Mounce told his friend, "You had better not ever mention untying anyone's thong again." Words change in meaning. The bottom line: The translations are trustworthy.
Yes, thong is a word that could definitely be misunderstood! 😂
So which version are you saying uses the word "Thong"?
@@hamerac Only the New American Standard Bible 1977 and the New American Standard Bible 1995. The original NASB did not use "thong" but strap.
@@carmensiekierke3579 I will look that up. "Thong" is a different word for sure , but maybe it's meaning or synonym is the same?
@@hamerac, there’s a type of sandal called a thong sandal, because the leather strap goes through the toes. I guess that’s just not the type of “thong” that immediately comes to the minds of most people today when they read or hear the word “thong”, thanks to tv, movies, and Victoria’s Secret. It would have been prior to a couple decades ago though, to most people anyway.
Thanks for your respectful & insightful assessment of the NIV. I happen to own the 1984 edition, the 2005 TNIV and now the 2011 update. My only disappointment in your critique is referring to the NIV as a "more dynamic" translation. In the Preface, under Translation Philosophy the NIV is referred to as a "Mediating" translation. When they find there is good parallel syntax from original languages they use them. Otherwise they utilize syntax appropriate to the meaning. They strike a good balance between formal equivalence and functional equivalence. Would love to hear you bring this out, and not perpetuate the myth of the NIV being "dynamic." Thank you.
I switched back to the NIV when I took Greek and learned that my Greek prof considered the NIV the most accurate of all the translations.
I would disagree with your prof but the NIV is OK. The NASB and NKJV are far more literal than the NIV. Although being literal is not always best and the NIV is one of the most accurate.
I use the NIV with a literal translation side by side. I have always done this. It seems to help me understand a scripture. To compare a literal and dynamic equivalent bible translation of scripture. I use other translations that are dynamic equivalent with my KJV or NKJV but since I grew up on the NIV I keep coming back to using it as my dynamic equivalent bible translation I use.
Thank you Tim for your explanation of the NIV. I had been a little bit skeptical of the NIV in the past because of other people's comments on it but I'm starting to feel more comfortable with it now. I was gifted an NIV in 2005, it was the Rainbow NIV and I have not really taken the time to really dig into it. But now after watching your video I feel that I need to give it a chance. Blessing to you.
I'm glad the video was helpful to you! Thanks for commenting!
Reason number 5 is my reason for going to a different translation. I just don't like anymore. I still use the earlier version but also use the ESV.
Love, love, love NLT!!! Even though I have all the translations.
I love the NIV when teaching, preaching and quoting the Bible. In my own personal devotions I use the NASB
I would add a sixth criticism of the NIV that’s pretty common: the NIV is written using a significantly less sophisticated vocabulary than many other translations. There are certainly pros and cons to this fact, but the NIV requires a much lower reading level than many other English versions. Also, my personal opinion is that the NIV lacks a certain flow found in the KJV, NKJV, ESV, CSB, and other superior translations. I find it to use many phrases that are stilted and awkward.
I'm surprised you include the CSB in that list. I've always found the CSB to be rather ugly in terms of how it reads. Or at least very plain.
It’s less sophisticated because it’s probably closer to modern English. Translations don’t need to overcomplicate to make it sound nice.
@@aperson4057 If you want to see "less sophisticated," look at the EasyEnglish Bible. They translated the entire Bible using a vocabulary of only 1200 words!
The results are arguably poor though. I regard it more as a paraphrase than a true translation.
Hi brother. Love your channel 🙌. I grew up on the NIV. It is easy to read. The Lord had me lead a bible study for about 3 years. I did use different translations while preparing to get a good understanding of what the Lord gave for the study that week, and even tried in my daily reading to try other translations. KJ I would need a dictionary lol, new living to me was, I don’t know if watered down is the right word, I just didn’t get anything from it.
The main reason I’m writing is, I have been told by KJ only ppl that I would not be able to witness to anyone with the NIV. Very discouraging to hear this. I didn’t stop reading it just prayed the Lord would help those ppl out.
I now also use the NASB 95, I’ve been taught how important little words such as, they, for, but, even ‘so’ are important . I did notice that NIV doesn’t start some sentences with these words.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Keep up the good work the the Lord has set for you.
Shalom and blessing brother!
my first experience of non kjv was @1958 in sunday school when we were reading verses in class and one boy had different words than mine (he was using an rsv). when the nasb came out i bought one (early 70's) and caught some grief from some friends and was turned down for a pastoral calling. when niv came out i bought one and the more i read the more i liked. it has some good renderings in places, but the one i use now is hcsb/csb, nasb/lsb (legacy), and 1967 scofield kjv/nkjv. one translation might be adequate but why not enjoy the blessings of multi translations. if the kjv had updated maybe we would not be having this conversation. it's not kjv that is the problem but the small group of kjv ONLY that attacks the one that has led to its losing its place
NIV is my go to study translation. Partly because I've invested in some good study Bibles (Life Application & Thompson Chain) that are NIV, but also because it reminds me of school/proper English as if I was writing a proper letter to a business vs a quick note to a friend.
I love the NIV, using the Pitt Minion as my main daily reader. I also have a Scofield III study bible wich comes in the 1984 version.
I've heard some say the term "gender accurate" is more fitting than "gender neutral." I think I agree, and for a more dynamic translation I don't mind at all. NIV was my first Bible, and praise God for it. Thanks for the video.
I have always had and loved the NIV!!
Great Bible!!
Our Lord Jesus commanded us to translate His Word into every language that everyone may know what God requires. Mathew28:20
God does not require us to know Hebrew and Greek. I'm glad God put the cookies on the bottom shelf for us.
I've depended upon the NIV for four decades to help me explain the Truth to many different people.
Love the NIV Bible.
Just thankful to just own a Bible.
As the Bible is illegal in some Countries 😮
Top Seller NIV.
What bothers me the most about the NIV (and most modern versions) is the removal of verses and words. Then again, I'm inclined to stick with TR Bibles.
An argument in favour of their removal is that older manuscripts found after the TR don't contain them. Scholars conclude they were additions to the original texts so they belong to footnotes. Not that I agree with that, but that's what I often hear in favour of the CT.
how do you compare the KJV and NIV 2011 re: John 1:18, Romand 9:5?
why did the NIV 2011 add the ending of paragraph 5:21 to the beginning of 5:22 in Ephesians and change the meaning all my other translation Nasb95 Esv Lsb nkjv and Niv 1990 split Ephesians 5:21 an 5:22 ...it seems like the niv is missleading at times compared to my other translations
Your explanation helped confirm some of the reasons I dislike the NIV (Nearly Inspired Version LOL).
I wouldn't care about it if it wasn't popular but because it's so popular it needs to scrutinized.
Those points are mind blowing and add context. Thank you for the insight.
Many people forget that the KJV isn't the original text, it was merely the first time we translated the original text into English. That doesn't make the KJV any better/perfect than other translations. All translations are just that... A translation.
The KJV you know today was not "the first time we translated the original text into English". I really recommend every Christian watch the documentary series "a lamp in the dark". It's the history of the English bible and where we're going based on history. I have it saved in my created playlists on my channel. A brother emptied his retirement account to produce this.
The Wycliffe Bible was the first English translation
As I recall, They put out the TNIV that was very liberal in some areas and almost nobody liked it. People that did like the 1984 NIV said we will stick with it. The publishers pulled the TNIV and said they would leave the NIV alone. They then put out the 2011 update with some of the wording from the TNIV that people didn't like and that upset a lot of people because they felt they were lied to by the publisher.
What would be an example of "very liberal" in the TNIV?
@@AFrischPerspective For that period of time as I believe you mentioned there was a lot of controversy over gender inclusive language. It was a very liberal idea to many at that time to use that type of language. I believe that is the main reason the TNIV was rejected. It is more acceptable in this day then it was at the time.
There was also an NIVI (inclusive language edition) back in 1996. Zondervan was not the publisher for that one though, and I don't believe it was ever sold in the States. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version_Inclusive_Language_Edition
@@AFrischPerspective People are being deceived do more research. If you are born again the Holy Spirit will lead you to the KJV.
I like the NIV translation, but like others more. I read through the NIV and, for me, others read better. But I think that's because I grew up listening to mostly KJV readings. Great presentation, thanks. I use whatever translation is being used at church for my main Bible, but at home read others as well. This year NKJV.
My problem with the NIV is word choice. My first copy of the NIV used the word ‘doctor’ instead of ‘physician’. I think the recent versions still use ‘doctor’. A doctor is someone who has been awarded a doctor’s degree. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to call Luke a physician. A physician is someone who practices the art of healing. That is how we know Luke. The word ‘doctor’ covers other disciplines.
Just like it calls "strong drink" "beer" in Proverbs. I don't think Solomon knew what beer was and when most people think of beer today it's certainly not as a strong drink.
@@Birdie_ not entirely true. Ancient Egypt was brewing a form of beer thousands of years ago. It might not be a Bud like we have today, but they definitely had beer during the era of Solomon
@@Mackedo5 Maybe, but it wasn't a widespread drink. Also the texts surely don't read "beer" and the point of it not being a strong drink for most of us today still stands; it fails to convey the idea of a strong drink to its broad audience. There was no reason to call it beer at all.
@@Birdie_: NOT only in Proverbs... :-/
1 Sam 1:15 (NIV 1984)
15 "Not so, my lord," Hannah replied, "I am a woman who is deeply troubled. I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the LORD.
Pro 20:1 (NIV 1984)
1 Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.
Pro 31:4 (NIV 1984)
4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
Pro 31:6 (NIV 1984)
6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;
Isa 24:9 (NIV 1984)
9 No longer do they drink wine with a song; the beer is bitter to its drinkers.
Isa 28:7 (NIV 1984)
7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions.
Isa 29:9 (NIV 1984)
9 Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless; be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer.
Isa 56:12 (NIV 1984)
12 "Come," each one cries, "let me get wine! Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better."
Mic 2:11 (NIV 1984)
11 If a liar and deceiver comes and says, `I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,` he would be just the prophet for this people!
Yeah, "doctor" is not at literary as "physician".
I have used the NIV, but went to the ESV since my church used this version. However, the newest version that has been fully revised has me curious about what text has been revised Is it still gender neutral? How does this newest version compare to the ESV? Thanks
I read both the NIV and KJV and enjoy both very much. I hear a lot about missing versus in the NIV and I understand the reasoning behind it and I happed to agree with this reassigning. My questions is, are there any verses ADDED by the NIV that are not in the KJV?
Two resources for the NIV that I have found very valuable. Although no longer in print, Cambridge produced a giant print New Testament of the 1984 edition in a green hard back. It is single column on very nice paper with very large text. It is an absolute joy to read. There are still a few copies of it on Ebay. Second, through my Audbile account, I came across a fabulous NIV audio bible narrated by David Suchet. IMHO he is one the best narrators I have ever heard. I would put him in the same league as David Cochrane Heath who narrates the ESV. I have been using the NKJV for many years and had forgotten just how clear and readable the NIV is.
NIV is a good " starter Bible" for new Christians. Later they can " graduate" to an ESV or NASB
I like the NIV but not very much. It's very comprehensible but some replaced words are anachronistic. Like calling strong drink "beer," a physician "doctor," Paul making a reference to boxing (sport), and some others I can't remember at the moment but truly shocked me. Also, it has unnecessary euphemisms here and there; it really tries to be family-friendly. It surely gets the point across but it is inconsistent with history and scripture.
I only read it at church because most people there seem to use it. I prefer the NKJV.
I'm not sure why calling a physician a "doctor" would be distracting. A physician literally is a doctor.
@@sorenpx "Doctor" is a title of someone who has a doctorate degree. They are not synonyms. Not all doctors are medical doctors. All physicians are doctors, not all medical doctors are physicians. Also there was no doctorate title back then. I get they want to make the text easier to understand but this choice of word is not only anachronistic but makes no sense.
@@Birdie_ I understand your point but the context, just as it does in any other English usage, makes it clear that we are speaking of a medical doctor and not an academic. Let's not forget that the Bible wasn't written in English at all and the English language did not exist in any form at that time, so in this sense the use of "physician" OR "doctor" is going to be anachronistic.
Furthermore, in contemporary society, if you say to someone "He's a doctor," who among us will first jump to the meaning of someone with a PhD? I would think that only someone who speaks English as a second language might do that. It's like the old saying, "Is there a doctor in the house?" Everyone instinctively knows you're talking about a medical doctor.
In any case, to avoid any possibility of confusion, perhaps physician would be better. But that doesn't mean "doctor" is wrong or a bad translation or even anachronistic, as you have said.
@@sorenpx Hm. Yeah, this is my second language and calling a medical professional a doctor is rare here. I suppose it's a bit strange to me.
Nevertheless, out of the two, I think "physician" is better because "doctor" is a title that didn't exist at all but practical medicine, the job of physicians, did. The occupation was the same as today and we have a word for it; there was no doctorate title back then and thereby no good reason to use "doctor" in a historical document. Sure the NIV wants to be readable but this is only one of the several choices I've found that don't suit the context because we already have very simple yet very accurate words to describe those terms.
For those solid reasons I still believe choosing "doctor" is anachronistic and "physician" appropriate in every sense.
@@Birdie_ I'd still push back and say that "anachronistic" isn't really correct, but I'll be happy to concede this much: Since it's clearly a point of confusion among English speakers in certain regions of the world, perhaps physician would be a better choice in order to avoid that confusion. Admittedly, I am speaking from an American/Western perspective. I can say that at least in this region of the world, when we read in Mark 9 that "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick," it doesn't sound strange and there's no confusion over whether Jesus is talking about a medical doctor or an academic. However, you have convinced me that in other regions the word "doctor" may not be immediately understood in the same way.
I will actually point out that, at least here, to use "doctor" to mean someone who is NOT a medical doctor is the more unusual usage. Typically to avoid confusion it would instead be said that "he holds a doctorate" or there would be some other designator to make it clear that we're not talking about medicine, because a medical doctor is the immediate assumption.
Great video! You explained the criticisms of the NIV well.
It is my belief that any serious Bible student should read multiple translations. I use NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, MEV, and LSB. All have their merits. I really don’t understand the conflict that seems to pop up. We as believers of Jesus are called to become more like Him. There simply is no time to waste on division over things that do not help us to that end.
I have a question about the NIV that no one seems to be talking about when I do a search online. On Luke 16:6, I checked the TR and Critical text original Greek and surely enough they are the same here as the ESV and NKJV respectively but the NIV gives units in gallons. Where did they get this conversion rate? I see one bath as 6 gallons but I dont see any liquid units converting as 1:9 to gallons anywhere
Great video. Thanks for sharing a view of your library as well.
15 years ago I was reborn and saved in the NIV study Bible and I still have that Bible to this day 15 years later and I also read different translations of the Bible and now that I am a pastor I preach from the NIV Bible because that is the scripture where I learned from to memorize versus.
Nice video... My church uses the KJV as the main bible, but since English is not our language, I must admit that some passages in the KJV is a little hard for me to comprehend. And everytime the passage from the KJV becomes confusing to me, I always grab the NIV and it explains it very well. The only issue for me regarding the NIV, are the missing verses. But all in all, it's a beautiful translation.
I used it for years, I don't now, I use NKJV. I think I listened to too many haters, and what was said concerned me; missing words & verses, I didn't like that.
I was saved with an NIV I picked at random in a bible store 20 years ago. Have come to find out it’s the 1984 text. Apparently NIV has been degraded quite a bit since so I can’t speak to that, but the 1984 will always be good with me even though I’ve switched to the KJV.
Many non-Catholic bibles translate the very same Greek word for ‘tradition’ as ‘teachings’ when it’s unfavorable to the Protestants position-
NIV- 2Thes 2:15 to name one. And squeezed in as a footnote seems less than forthcoming.
Insightful 👍 NIV is a great translation. I use interlinear for study but the NIV for a nonstop reading cause of its readability .
Great video! You are always truthful!
In my experience the people who bash the NIV are usually KJV Only people who are against any Bible that is not the KJV. I always found that one to be too difficult to understand with many outdated words which have completely different meanings today. The NIV is the Bible I read and bring to church now.
Since the church I belonged to did not have a Sunday night service, I at times attended an IFB KJV only church on Sunday nights occasionally because they had an excellent music program that I really enjoyed. At that time I carried a KJV/NIV Parallel Bible and learned something very interesting about the KJV Only pastor. He was extremely adamant about KJV Onlyism and always read from the KJV. But then he always followed it up with an “In other words” which was, yup, you guessed it, right out of the NIV. Very interesting. And this was not a one time incident, it was a habit repeated almost every sermon.
It’s weird.. I have several translations of the Bible, but have somehow missed the NIV…… I did buy my mother a copy, but have not bought one for myself, and probably won’t. I really don’t have anything against the NIV………except thst there have been too many “updates”…
I don’t have cash a problem with individuals, or churches using the NIV……I just don’t feel the tneed to have one.
Did any of thst make sense?
I have a Deacon in our church ( i am the pastor), he was raised on the kjv but started reading the Living Bible when it came out in 72. He says he believes everything he believed growing up on the kjv. Hes the only person ive ever met that exclusively uses the LB. I wonder if there are others.
I appreciate this video. Although I do own a handy size NIV TCR I do not favor NIV. I had no educated reason why other than perhaps it was because as a child everything was KJV and in Bible college my Bible lit professor insisted on NASB. I was a new Christian and other than passages I had memorized as a child in KJV, it was the version I learned as I truly began to explore Scripture. It is the version I prefer as it is what I am familiar with since Bible Lit 46 years ago. Sadly many of the new Bibles I would check out don’t come in NASB and other than KJV I get a little bit uncomfortable messing around with other versions. That doesn’t imply I think they are “wrong” just not comfortable. I wouldn’t get rid of my new handy NIV TCR as for the budget price I paid any TCR would be super and well worth having.
I’m a year late to the party but I can tell you why. I’ve heard more than one pastor from different denominations (using the 1984) stop their sermon and say “They (the translators) got this wrong,” then begin an explanation of why it’s wrong and make an on the spot correction. I only needed to hear that a few times to decide to kick it to the curb. Many say that the newest version has corrected those issues but what are the chances I’m going to switch back? Slim, very slim.
I love the NASB '95, The ASV and the HCSB . The HCSB is much better and flows better than the CSB.. I love the fact that the NASB and the HCSB captilizes all Deity words and makes Old Testament Prophecy in the New Testament in Caps or Bold.. It really speaks to me and jumps off the page to me when I read it.. I also really like verse by verse format which NASB and KJV are. I read KJV as well but not as much as the other 2 but I always compare them to it.
They are harder to find now but I like NIV '84. Too much updating makes me crazy and it is expensive to continue buying the latest greatest version. God bless ya'll really good.
I think using the word, they, in the context that we use it today to refer to a single person in a sentence, is fine to refer to a single person in the Bible, if applicable. I have never thought of that as being a gender neutral way of speaking myself. It just seems a natural way to talk, and I am a 52 year old woman. My very first, treasured, adult Bible that I bought myself was the NIV study Bible back in 1991 or 1992. I LOVED that Bible and there are highlights and notes all over it! I still have it. Most of my Bibles are the NIV translation. In fact, it has only been recently that I even knew there was criticism with the NIV translation. lol I think if a person is going to an in depth study so hard that it does matter about being as close to a word for word translation, then there are a few other translations that are better for that kind of study. However, for general reading, and study, and worship, I don't see an issue with the NIV Bible translation. I have not exhausted all the research on this issue of the NIV being criticized, but what I have learned, I think are people being nit picky. It is a great scholarly Bible translation for most things. If it isn't something that a certain person chooses to use, that is fine also. I don't see the need to criticize this translation so much. This is my opinion.
As an add on, I have not looked at the actual differences between the earlier translations and the 2011 translation. Is the 2011 translation the one everyone has an issue with? Hmmm, I am going to search and see what if I can find something that will highlight the difference between the 84 and 2011 NIV Bibles.
Thank you for addressing concerns some people have about the NIV. In my circle of friends, the NIV has been the predominate translation used for the most part. That said, that majority uses the 1984 update. As you said, the NIV 2011 is more gender inclusive and that is a problem for many traditionalists.
The NIV is simply good and lucid English. The inclusive language can be jarring, but it’s a relatively small problem now that I’ve actually started reading it.
Idc what anyone says I love the NIV! Unless you’re a KJV ONLY , I don’t see why you would not like it, if you like the ESV & NASB you shouldn’t hate it... I’ve heard people hate on NIV but like the NLT which makes 0 sense at all considering the NIV is more accurate
I think one of the NIVs reasons for love and hate depending on who you are is its low reading level. I'm not a scholar but if the nasb for example is among the most literal of translations that seems to indicate the niv is almost a readers digest version: something translated beneath the level of the original work so not a translation at all in a very strict sense. Now I wouldn't go that far but I could see the argument. Most I think is kjv only folks. Growing up kjv the niv was just the whipping boy of new translations. It was popular and it was easily recognizable as different so it was an easy target. On a side note being kjv preferred I'm still kinda shocked it's no 2 on the list of most popular. You wouldn't know it by the book stores or by most english speaking Christians you engage with . It seems only fundies (of which I am one technically) go with it. Every other church uses esv or something (I know the individual in the pew/chair might be using something different but the pastor will always be using something modern)
Hello Tim,
I agree with you on the approach of wanting to make a easier to understand with current English speaking people, but hear is my concerns, their using the critical text which in my own studies I haven’t seen one expert in the language of the Greek explain in a good way as to why they use it in their preferences of modern bibles other then their older. And that means nothing to me. Older in this since doesn’t prove better or more accurate. Sorry they have give a better argument for this!
Really well done, thank you! Gave a broad enough view in an articulate and concise manner!
Great job in explaining how the NIV got a bad rap not the best but not a bad translation, good job
I grew up using the 1984 NIV, and agree it’s very readable. Once I got into deeper study, I found the NIV avoided some theological terms, so that got me looking at other translations, so I began using the NASB and now use the NKJV. Also, I understand the NIV is somewhat inconsistent, with some books being much better translated than others. However, I’m not expert enough to be sure. I still use it sometimes, and like it, but don’t use it for studying. I have been put off the NIV more recently by the marketing hype around it, and was shocked by the aggressive way the publisher tried to get rid of older editions after bringing out the 2011 edition. Commercialisation of the Bible is something I always find quite ugly and offensive.
The KJV is hard for me to read and doesn’t get my attention. I read the niv every day and gets straight to the point, easy to understand without the thou, hast, etc . Up to date for the English translation and God understands that the world changes .
I totally understand you but it's amazing because while, yes, you are right NIV is more straight to the point but aside from certain passages, having been raised up using the kjv I would say 9/10 times the kjv is perfectly clear to me and just as a matter of taste much preferred and comes off feeling sharper or richer in its expression. But that a totally subjective claim. I don't think my understanding it more clearly is because I'm smart just what a person is used to.
I have a dozen or so study Bibles. Three are based on the NIV and they are produced by great scholars. My favorite is the Zondervan NIV Study Bible edited by D A Carson. This is a tremendous resource for any serious Bible student. Does anyone else like this Bible?
Tim, are "HOLMAN HCSB" Bibles still available? Not CSB , but HCSB. I believe Southern Baptist were involved in the style and Theological structure of it? Any helpful information would be great!
The HCSB is no longer in print, but there are plenty of them still out there. The translation was printed by the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it was produced by a team of more than 100 scholars from 17 denominations.
@@AFrischPerspective Thank you Tim. I actually like it over the "CSB". Is there a specific way to search for it so that you don't just get CSB but you get HCSB because CSB is still Holman. Correct?
This is why I avoid both HCSB & CSB, in spite of the variety involved, still owned by a denomination.
@@mitchady9338 "Owned by a denomination". How so? He did not say it was owned by a particular denomination did he? I prefer NASB over anything actually and read it the most.
@@AFrischPerspective What were those denominations, or how do you find out.? Why so many
Thanks for covering the topic
Love the NIV and agree it gets a lot of unnecessary hate
Thank you for this video. I have decided on the NIV translation, but now I’m on the fence between the NIV study Bible and Starting Place study bible. I’m sure at some point I will get both but I have a limited budget. Any suggestions?
I'm not familiar with the Starting Place Study Bible, but the NIV Study Bible is very good
The starting place bible is for beginner Christians but I have one it’s an good bible
What’s the good Study Bible for beginners
I own a NIV Life Application Study Bible and I love it it is the bread of life.
My only disagreement with your videos, which I appreciate very much, is your use of the word “literal” because none of us has anything that comes close to a literal Bible as we understand the term. Scholars mean something different by their use of that word. For example, in Psalm 16:7 the psalmist says that his kidneys instruct him. Try to find a Bible that uses the word “kidney”. That kind of stuff is everywhere. If any of us actually had a literal Bible we wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of it. To your credit you have touched on this a few times. I think it would be helpful if you did a video just on the meaning of the word “literal” as scholars use it. Otherwise, well done as always.
A big difference occurs in Rom 1.17. NKJ has ' For in it the righteousness of God is revealed' whereas NIV has 'a righteousness from God is revealed'. The NIV has essentially translated the Lutheran reading of Rom 1.17.
#6) Misconceptions of what "translation" is about. People who have no experience in translation often have misguided expectations and perceptions of what "translation" does and accomplishes. One of the most common examples of this is the phrase "I don't want my translators to make 'interpretations' for me." Anyone saying this demonstrates that they do not understand the very basics of "translation".
I’m a big fan of the NIV and I recommend it to many people that it’s better suited for.
There are some issues in the NIV that I can’t get around.
For example Jeremiah 50:37 (NIV): 37 A sword against her horses and chariots
and all the foreigners in her ranks!
They will become weaklings.
A sword against her treasures!
They will be plundered.
Isaiah 19:16 has the same issue.
The “literal” word for weaklings is women.
It seems as though they replaced this to make it more palatable to the modern ear.
I really hope you respond to this Tim.
I genuinely love this translation but this rendering of the text makes me feel uneasy.
I’m using NIV 1984, NKJV and ESV.
I heard The later published NIV has some issues about inserted woke culture.