I blame the King James Only movement for starting all this negativity. It was the Book by Gail Riplinger that pointed out the so called missing verses in the NIV and other translations that did not use the TR. We have a lot of people here where I live that have very poor English, the NIV is a great translation for them. I would challenge any of these people saying the NIV is corrupt and all the usual nonsense to come down here to South Africa, Cape Town and then come work under these people, I will hook you up with a ministry that minister under the prostitutes, when you see how blessed these people are who get saved and the joy when they get to read and own the word of God in the NIV you might have a change if heart. I don't like the NIV for myself, but the NIV most def has its use! God bless you all.
You are absolutely correct. Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, Jack Chick, 99% Independent Baptists ( I am of the 1% NASB 1977) are the main culprits for this foolishness.
I totally agree. I grew up on NIV, then KJV, then NKJV, and minister to others through NASB and ESV. I don't forget my roots in NIV that brought me to salvation and found the Lord is good. 1 Peter 2: 2-3
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I have found the NIV does aid the reader as a commentary within the translation. Take that as it is, it has blessed people and may be the best introduction to the bible for the new believer.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Yes, I think that statement does articulate that phenomena perfectly. Any scribe or interpreter would have to at the time it was given, how can we do better? I think that ESV gets them right more frequently but the verses NIV does better are ahead by a strong margin. That's coming from a guy that likes to analyze by reading apocryphal works, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan and occultist works too, look for the things that the "other" try to usurp and corrupt - trace that back to the origin of truth. As long as it all leads the student to the Logos-Christ Alpha/Omega in Revelation 19:11-16, it's worth studying. The light of truth casts long shadows among the obstacles of the world, search the shadows for contrast as you pass through them?
I was raised reading the NIV and it was only recently that I switched to a different version, the CSB. I absolutely love the NIV for how easy it was to read as a child and for people who aren’t proficient in their English it’s also amazing.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 The KJV is just one of many translations of the inspired Word, the Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek scriptures. The Modern translations use hundreds of manuscripts to create their base text and the KJV used about 10 manuscripts compiled by a Roman Catholic humanist.
You know Tim, I believe you're way off base when insulting the NLT while complimenting the NKJV . The nlt and niv both translate Rom 11:13 correctly while the nkjv totally misses the mark and diminishes greatly the great apostle to the gentiles..Paul (the only apostle to the gentiles)..Stop Mixing Doctrines!
@tonimccoy9778 we know that other apostles went to the Gentiles in the East, so it would seem that Paul was the apostle to some gentiles, but not all. God bless.
Niv is the most 'realistic' but accurate translation...and one can argue that realistic is more accurate than pure literalism. The problem I have with literal translation philosophy is we end up with a new language...namely 'Biblish'. This is a sign to me at least that something has definitely therefore been 'lost in translation'. That's why the Niv is so popular, because it strikes a very good balance between the two translation philosophies
The CSB is everything that the NIV tried to be in terms of readability. It’s also scratches the “literalness” itch thanks to its excellent footnotes that give the possible alternate renderings.
I personally love the NIV but also have the ESV, NASB, KJV, and NKJV. Would you recommend the CSB to someone who loves the NIV? I’m very curious now and would like CSB. God bless
I personally love the NIV but also have the ESV, NASB, KJV, and NKJV. Would you recommend the CSB to someone who loves the NIV? I’m very curious now and would like to try the CSB. God bless
@@777Bible I would, as it "draws from both Dynamic and formal equivalence translation philosophies". When doing Bible study i use it with the NIV (orig. version), NKJV, NASB and, reluctantly, the ESV (its RSV ancestry still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, are you SURE you scrubbed out all the Liberal leaven when writing the ESV?). Two complaints about the CSB, using "men and women" instead of "men" (c'mon, GROW UP and be "big" about it, if need be, put in an * to point to a clarifying footnote at the bottom of the page) and one place where they say Jesus was the angel who led the Israelites. I have an I.O.U. to research that. BTW my home church had a pastor who preached from the NKJV and i had no problem following in my NIV - until he read God's instructions for crossing the Jordan.
The short answer, *absolutely NOT* I actually used to live across the street from Dr. Karen Jobes. She was a translator on the CBT, who put together the NIV. After speaking with her often, & after spending a few years researching all the versions (I own: ESV/NIV/NIV 87’/ NASB/NSRV/KJV/NKJV/CSB/HCSB/MEV) & where & how they actually came to be… not just shallow research most do like watching a video or something… I have concluded that while not perfect, the NIV is very well made. It’s surprisingly really accurate!!! Those asking why the NIV removes passages - they should be asking, “why did the KJV *add* passages (1 John 5:7)??” Most who hate on it… the arguments they’re making aren’t honestly valid usually. Such as what I said above about removing stuff. NO it does not delete the idea that Jesus is God!! Read John 1:18 in the NIV vs the KJV. The NIV is more blunt actually about Jesus. Very few bibles are even “bad” & we all know which they are. TPT/MESSAGE/WatchTower. If a person wants something as literal to what was originally written… nothing can touch the NASB. If you want something slightly more readable without blowing much with the word for word.. ESV/ CSB & RSV are good. If you want 1 step down, more toward the readability… the NIV really shines. As does the NRSV. If you want the easiest to read… CEB, or NLT are the go to. If you really want to use the T.R texts.. the KJV is fine, though it’s got many MORE problems than the NIV imo. (1 John 5:7 DIDNT EXIST prior to 1550 AD… KJV still has it today…)…the NKJV is the same, just updated wording… & then the MEV is even more updated language… all 3 have the same source text though. The Bible I became saved with? NLT. The Bible I read the most? NIV/NIV 87’ The Bible I use for teaching? NRSV/ESV. The most middle ground between readability & word for word? CSB/HCSB. The moral of this post… use which speaks best to you. Feel free in knowing they’re all good versions. And please stay away from anyone who says without the KJV, you’re unsaved, or don’t have Gods word. These KJVO people can not be reasoned with, they also just ignore logic, & have arrogance on levels you wouldn’t imagine.
On certain points I agree with you but not on the point that the KJV is flawed. I am not kjv only. I personally prefer the nkjv because the benefits in understanding far outweighs the differences between the two .I definetly prefer the byzantine text over the critical text.I am not Pentecostal but for people who like the kjv but have a hard time with the language I would recommend The Expositer Study Bible by Jimmy Swaggert..A kjv reader would like it well.thx Toni's husband
I have enjoyed your videos so much that I have even given you your very own folder so I can store your videos. LOL You always have such interesting analysis.
A literal translation is not always the most accurate translation. NIV is a good balance. It’s pretty much a bit of both styles. That’s why it’s so popular. Great video.
Mr R777. Agree with you 100%. I read kjv and nkjv. I believe the niv may be closer to kjv than the nkjv but it's more understandable..Blessings Toni's husband
The I Kings example is a good one that just bothers me to no end. Scripture warns of messing with the meaning of it and that meaning is communicated by the use of words so using man when it says man is the way it should be. Social changes should not impact translation. Just like God, He never changes, his word shouldn’t bend to the whims of the day. I want to read God’s word! I’m a little concerned about the church not standing strong enough behind good exegesis and hermeneutics.
Thank you for this video. Again, very thoughtful and I like your examination of the NIV. My criticisms of the NIV2011 come out of extensive and current use of it. I'm an associate pastor of a church that uses the NIV. I teach from it every week and I have read through it 2-3 times (reading through it now again). What I don't like is how the NIV goes to great lengths, sometimes, to make the text gender inclusive or neutral. This is problematic for me personally because I want the scriptures to be as close to the original languages as possible when I'm studying it or doing personal devotions. I am also concerned about this particular translation and what it will look like down the road, as you mentioned in your video. Thanks, again!
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 I appreciate the comment and the link to the video. I didn't see all of the Bible references but in the first example, Psalm 10:5, it seems that the KJV has gotten that word "grievous" very, very wrong. The Hebrew word there is "yahilu" which is a verb that has the sense of "to make steady favorable progress" (English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear). In that particular case, the NIV (as well as the ESV, NKJV, NASB) got that word right in its translation. I think it would do you good to do some homework and study on your own and you just might find that the NIV is not a "demonic piece of garbage." Let me guess, you're a KJVO? Good day to you, sir.
I'm really enjoying your channel and your perspective!! I always think we have to be wary, I have always used the NIV as my EDC but I feel there is a lot of value in having a more literal translation and a Hebrew/Greek Bible to bring along side it during study just to add layers of protection and clarity when we teach and are accountable for that teaching. If I used the KJV as my EDC I would bring the NIV along side it as well. I would really like to find a high quality parallel with NIV and ESV or something like that.
When the NIV first came out was really taken with it, and loved it so much I bought a study Bible in that version. Daily use wore thin, especially when comparing it to the KJV or NKJV. I don't mind the newer version of the NIV. Still use it to sometimes clarify the OT! I use it like study notes, or casual reading of stories. Deep Bible study to me is only. through KJV or NKJV. The NASB used to be one of my favorites, and still is when looking for a verse that says it straight out without fluff, or wordiness. They all have their own set of usefulness, in my view.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
LOL so many "expurts" and so little time. I've done plenty of research for decades, so a lot more than people younger than the shoes in my closet. A Bible unused is worthless. Use what speaks to you, and most people do tend towards getting the KJV, oddly enough, with enough study. Any version has the salvation message.
I use the 1979 NIV and it’s excellent at helping me understand the Old Testament. It’s been my main bible since I was 16. I’m in my 50’s now and have read other versions and while I’ll say it somewhat lacks the poetry of KJV, and still isn’t as wordy as the NSAB, it’s a great version for everyone. I’m not familiar with the versions past 1984 but I love the original. God bless 🙏
NIV, oddly enough is the version I have probably come to love the most. It has the most scholarship behind it, its probably one of the most scrutinized by translators, and it has one of the strongest cases for the deity of Christ. KJVonlyists will say that because its produced by Zondervan who publishes other books that are considered "ungodly", they assume the NIV is somehow corrupted or something. Its rediculous. The NIV is a great bible for accuracy and reading, and its easily my favorite for reading. Im super interested in the NET for study, that seems to have some really good scholarship involved.
100%. It looks that you’ve actually looked into the history of the different versions! Because funny enough… whenever people judge the NIV, they almost never have looked up anything about it. It is actually a very accurate representation of the original text, which surprised me when I realized it KJVO will also say “if you’re not KJVO… then you think Gods word is as buried for 400 yrs until the Dead Sea scrolls!!” They don’t at all see the irony lol.. if KJVO is true.. that means NO ONE IN THE CHURCH HAD GODS WORD FOR 1,600+ YEARS UNTIL THE KJV!!!! Lol it’s nuts how they don’t even acknowledge that… their exact argument works against them… but even worse!!
@@BabyDoIIx I’ve actually cornered them on their logic, I ask them if people in Japan have the gospel if they can’t read 16th century English when they don’t understand English in the first place. Some actually believe you can’t saved without a kjv, and that blows my mind, but that’s the cult like beliefs of the kjv only crowd
Thanks for tackling this subject. I've been on the fence about buying a Schuyler PSQ in NIV for a few weeks now. I favor the critical text, believing it better reflects the autographs, but I don't really like the switch to gender inclusive language. I think the preacher or teacher should study the text well and know whether to apply it to men only or to men and women.
That is where the Rabbi's prove their wisdom. Living Hebrew, not just speaking it, does help. They'll tell you that male implies female and vice versa. But, over in USA espdcially, some are so petty in being literal and fundamentalist, you just can't win. We have Southern Baptist here in my African big city, and they are best referred to as "intellectually constipated.' They will split hairs but don't even why that OLD Bible of theirs isn't remotely as accurate as NIV or NET. People should really do proper research before hanging opinions out on the laundry lines. Some have been militant and offensive. And their Jesus drowned in half a beer. They even got the Name wrong: in Greek, the Angel told Miryam to call Him Yeshua. See what people had made of His name because of their typical ineptitude to pronunciate. Even if it was inerrently breathed, James I & IV added 100,000 mistakes. Fix that please, and educate the opinionated.
@@isiseshisewebhu I would agree with your statement regarding the wisdom of the Rabbis... if I EVER ran into one that told me they prayed to JESUS.. but Romans 1:22 tells us regarding fallen Man... "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," and so that is where I place Non Christ believing Rabbis..
Excellent video, Tim! I really like the NIV, both the 1984 and 2011 editions. On the issue of "gender inclusive/accurate" language in the NIV2011, I find it pretty transparent... I actually had to look for it in most cases. To me, translation philosophy and textual basis are is a non-issues. With the NIV, you know exactly what you're getting (as is stated in the preface): a translation based on critical sources and is dynamic-equivalent. That's what makes it easy to read and understand as well as accurate.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I use the 1984 niv version, but the 2011 niv version has many changes that does can change the meaning of scripture. Not particularly adding or taking away verses, but the words chosen and phrasing tend to change the actual meanings. Preacherman Sage has a RUclips channel and does a pretty good job with comparisons from the 1984 version and the 2011 version. I personally would not use the 2011 version due to the changes. The 1984 edition is more comparable to the ESV to me.
Though the NLT is more thought for thought, I have found it to be faithful to the teachings of the Bible. I call it the Bible on training wheels because it sometimes repeats a verse at the end of a passage, combining the beginning statement with an earlier statement to bring the whole teaching together. Dry helpful in tying together some of Paul’s long discourse. In that sense it is more like a commentary than simply a literal translation. A favorite devotional Bible for me is the Tyndall House People’s Parallel Bible, which is a side by side KJV and NLT. If I am having difficulty with some archaic words in KJV, I look at the NLT for clarification; and if I want a more precise translation while reading the NLT, I look at the KJV for clarification.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
We were raised to call it the "Nearly Inspired Version." Now as an adult, I stead clear of any translation that paraphrases like The Message. KJV, CSB (my default), and NASB for me all the way. The fact we have so much debate on this and so much division in doctrinal beliefs and so much variety in translation is frustrating and does damage to the Kingdom. As far as gender transparency, nearly all languages have gender specific articles for nouns. I was taught in first grade in '96 that when we don't know if the subject is male or female (sex) we use the male for default. I wouldn't have a problem changing this rule if it weren't for the violent hatred for males in society today. It's pure politics.
An example of how literal is too literal is the original Douay at Isaiah 5.1b: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil." Accurate? Yes and no...it is accurate to the words, but it is actually "so right it's wrong!"
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Agree. Look at Psalm 16:7. If that verse was translated literally it would say, “my kidneys instruct me”. Of course that would make no sense to any English reader. You are right. Something can be “so right it’s wrong!”
The NIV 1984 was my first bible in 2010. I continually choose that over the NLT for a "Functional Equivalence" translation. I find that even though the NLT and NIV84 are translated in the same spirit, the NIV84 seems to be more literal and I prefer this. Of course as I've grown in my walk I've added the KJV and ESV to my collection for reference for when I want to get real literal. Now my NIV84 is rough and molded so I'm looking to replace it, and fortunately I learned of this 2011 "update" so I'm searching used book stores and ebay :) for a "new" one since the NIV84 is still my preferred translation at this point in time. I really wish that someone would just buy the publishing rights to the NIV84 and release it as the NIV84, I'd buy one on the day it releases :).
This right here. I don't mind the NIV2011 but the NIV84 is just special. I had one when I first started walking with Jesus but then my church switched to NKJV so I did too. The NIV84 just feels like home to me. I found a couple of clean used ones I'm thinking of reminding, but the modern typesetting changes are tough to go without. For now I've settled on the CSB which really reminds me of the NIV84.
I stopped using the NIV before I even knew there were criticisms or issues about it. I just didn't care for it. The church I was attending at that time in my Christian walk was using the NIV almost exclusively, so I bought the cheapest one I could find as my Sunday-go-to-meeting Bible. At home, I used my King James. I guess that has always been my preference, along with the New King James. I was only a regular attendee of that church for a little over a year before I moved to my local Calvary Chapel, which was a KJV only church in the early 90's. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could find negatives about every translation. But firstly, I am not a scholar, so secondly, I just follow wherever the Holy Spirit leads!
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage they call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I've been debating for a while whether or not to pick up an NIV and recently a CSB Though, I have recently purchased a NET which may fill that hole in my Bible collection at least for a while and So far I have enjoyed its companionship to my NASB....guess I'll have to watch your videos on the CSB vs the NIV.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Thank you for your thoughtful video. I have great affection for several of our formal equivalence-based modern English translations but I also find some of the criticisms of the NIV and the New Living Translation to be infuriating. It is easy to review the qualifications of the many respected scholars on the NIV and NLT translation committees and the underlying ancient manuscripts they relied upon. On can disagree with their emphasis on the dynamic equivalence approach to translation or their occasional use of gender neutral pronouns. However, those who claim that the NIV is the product of some idiotic new world order conspiracy or that the NLT is not a legitimate scholarly-based translation are incorrect. Throughout the English speaking world, tens of millions of devoted followers of Jesus are especially thankful for the NIV and NLT. Both have done so much to enhance our ability to understand God’s Word and, as a result, strengthen our faith. Those who prefer the NIV or the NLT are often excoriated by prideful translation snobs and the KJV-only lunatic fringe. My bet is that when Christ makes his final accounting of our lives, our fondness for the easily understandable and immensely readable NIV and NLT will not be counted against us.
Exactly right. Thought for thought or dynamic equivalence is the best way to convey the meaning of what the text of Scripture is saying. Word for word is more difficult if you have a learning disability and can’t quite grasp what the Bible is telling you. I love the NIV and the NLT because of how natural they sound in conversations and group Bible study. What is really irritating to me is when someone says Acts 2:38 in the NIV is translated “loosely” my question to them is, “So what?” Going thought for thought is the best way to understand the Bible and great for personal growth and study.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
My understanding of the NIV 1984 to 2011, was mostly based on the changing of the English language. So, could the trend you mention be really a trend in the English language, more than in the NIV. It would be interesting to expand this discuss to include the update to the NT in 1978 when whole bible was first release, and the change from 1978 to the 1984, to balance the idea of trends... Just adding to the discussion.
Sorta.. but a big thing they go after it for is they simply chose to say, “brothers & sisters” instead of “brothers”… which honestly is ridiculous to get upset over… that’s to assume women have no place in Gods world… also, if you look at the Greek… it’s very clearly shown that the term “BROTHERS” actually refers to men AND women… which yes.. it does seem strange, until you realize that it’s exactly the same as when you would while referring to a group of 5 women & 5 men as “Hey you GUYS…” every English speaker understands that “guys” is a euphemism, & refers to everyone… it’s just one of those funny things about langue… well ‘BROTHERS’ is the same thing :) People attack it… & don’t at all understand these simple basic things.
I do remember that even the 1984 NIV got criticism, probably unjustly so. I do think those of us who are serious about reading and studying the word of God need to grapple with some of these things. Though I never used the 1984 NIV, it seems to have been a good translation. But for me--and I don't consider that this is just a matter of preference--any time you butcher the grammar of the language for the sake of cultural compliance you do damage to what is trying to be said. "They" or "them, plural, should never be a substitute for "he, him, she," or "her". For me, then, the 2011 NIV goes beyond what I could ever recommend to a disciple.
Are we really at the point where we need a paraphrase to understand God’s Word in our own language? “It’s so easy to read” has become more important to people than “it’s an accurate translation”. This is a disturbing trend. Several better translations are simple to understand (ESV, CSB, NKJV etc). If it is that hard for you to understand the Bible you need to spend more time in it.
Personally I think it’s a good translation for someone who isn’t familiar with scripture I use it with my KJV just to get more clarity, what I don’t like is verses are left out, words changed or added which changes the meaning, that’s why I use the KJV as my primary bible but I don’t have don’t an issue with modern translations they have their use, what I have noticed with new believers is they’ll get confused with some contradictions within modern translations or something cast doubt in their mind if they’re able to catch it, from my personal experience that’s what turned me back to KJV, reading through the NIV I noticed subtle changes which I never would have caught if I wasn’t taught with the King James first, but to each their own, I always encourage new believers to own at least one KJV in their personal Bible study if other translations are their primary. Great video keep up the great work God bless ✝️🙏🏽🕊♥️
I regularly look at multiple translations for when I teach and I am regularly impressed with the literal word choices of the KJV when compared to the original languages.
My go-to is the NASB. The 1954 NIV was my first and I still have it. I like to reference different translations including the ESV, NKJV and even the NLT.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Yes it is justified. If it were the only Bible someone could have to read it would be missing many important verses. So what if it's easier to read. It only manages to gaslight.
I have the 1973 New Testament, 1978 edition, 1984 edition, 1996 inclusive language edition, 2005 today’s new international version, 2011 edition and a uk edition-it is so interesting to compare them all and to see how little in most places it has been revised. It is also interesting to see how the footnotes and text have sometimes been switched. The CBT through the years was very cautious about just putting out something new and replacing the old edition. With the 1996 edition the 1984 was sold right alongside it on the shelf in the UK. And for a time the TNIV was sold right alongside the 1984 here in the States.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I've come to really love the NIV '11 as of late. The gender neutral pronouns don't bother me as much as it once did. As long as Biblica in their future updates don't continue to 'chase the culture' I can definitely stomach gender neutral pronouns and enjoy the the NIV for it's clarity.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
The only thing that I found “wrong” with the NIV specifically is that in 2 Samuel 14:2, it translates “lotion” for “oil”. In certain place it gets too modern.
My beef with the NIV and other less literal translations is that I don't care to know what the translators think the writers meant, just what the writers actually said. What they the translators think the writer meant, may not be what the writer meant but the writer meant what he actually wrote, and when this happens invariably the translators biases will be translated. I want to interpret the Bible myself, I don't want the translators to tell me what to think. This takes aways for me, the role of the Holy Spirit in the study of the Bible, this is why I'm not big into study bibles and commentaries (even though I every now again I look at it for some things, not necessarily the notes), it's their opinion and it doesn't always square with what is written in the Bible. Personally, for me, and this is my opinion, whoever can should try to read the Bible in its original language as much as is possible and while this is not as feasible as one would want to think, plus the Byzantine/Critical text issue, whoever can should and make their own conclusions.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Back when the NIV2011 came out I was along with the crowd that criticized it for it’s gender inclusivity. However, as I’ve gone from someone who only appreciates a good literal translations to someone who kind of likes something more in the middle (CSB or NET), I’ve loosened up my criticisms about it. Especially since I believe now that if your pastor would preach those sections and would include the women in those exhortations, then why shouldn’t a bible translation clarify that point. If the passage is for both genders then I feel that it’s justified to render it for both genders. Of course only as a point to clarity and not, as you have shown to be the issue with the CEB, a point of obscurity. Loved the video Tim. What a Frisch Perspective!
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
One of the big differences is in how they handle gender language. The 2011, for example, uses the gender neutral "they" instead of "he" in certain places if the referent is not specifically male.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
The NIV is my favourite translation, I love it because it's got a good mix of word for word and thought for thought, and that's why it's so popular. I've never found it's use of gender inclusive language an issue either, I've found that it only uses it when a passage is talking about men and women, and it does that because that's how English is spoken today, in fact the majority of modern Bible translations do the same thing, so if you attack the NIV you'd have to attack every 21st century translation apart from the ESV.
I heard a lecture by James White on King James Version and modern translations,I learn later from a friend that he is also the author of the book King James Only Controversy.I was wondering what can you say about this book.Thanks for making this video.
Thanks for your comment.By the way before I watch this video I bought a book Serious Omissions in the the NIV Bible by Keith Piper a fundamental baptist pastor from Australia,if you are interested you can google his name.In this book the NIV is not only criticize but other modern translations like NKJV,NASV,GNB and one can notice that the basis of comparison is the KJV which is a standard for the KJVonly which the position of the author.
First time I read the NIV, I questioned that I was reading the Bible or not...I had just come from the NASB which in turn followed the KJV according to our Pastor's choice. I have not read it since then, although I have heard that it corrects the NASB and/or the KJV...nut my next choice will probably be the NKJV. maybe. Thank you.
Pretty much spent all of my early Christian walk under the NIV, way before I really knew about original languages. I only really knew about the KJV, which to me was just 'the bible'. Mum got an NKJV which I became hooked straight away. Then I heard talk of the NASB in association with the Pentecostal takeover where we lost a 3rd of my church (Baptist). Needless to say I blamed the bible over people's decision making. Anyway, that was over 30 years ago now. God bless.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Lucifer is used only once in the whole. KJV bible in Isaiah 14:12 (where NIV says morning star). I have heard a pastor say that in the original Hebrew it means "lightbringer", & it seems to have been his pre-fall name. Afterwards he was called many things including Satan (meaning adversary), the deceiver, beelzebub (meaning lord of dung), beliel (meaning worthless) and others. I believe it was meant to be more like an adjective than a proper name, reflecting his previous position as an angel of light. If it still bothers you, try to read several points of view from Hebrew language scholars. It helps me.
@@magicalowl1782 Lucifer is Latin, Satan is Hebrew, Devil is Greek, all describing the same person. When you remove the enemy's name it leads to confusion. That is why the King James and the New King James left that name in. Although I do use other translations to help me understand, they are water down and that's a fact.
@@philiph.5113 Yes, that sounds factual although I have a different viewpoint on "watered down". The NKJV cultural backgrounds study bible has good notes on this topic & discusses why KJV is only translation to use Lucifer. Unless you can read original Hebrew/Greek, everything else is a translation, and no translation is perfect. Have a blessed day, my brother 😊
The NIV is my least favorite version and it has nothing to do with any supposed issues with the translation itself. I just don't care for the way the language flows. I prefer KJV, NASB and NLT. I can appreciate what they were trying to do, namely, a translation that was a middle ground between literal and dynamic equivalence, but it's just not for me. But that's just a personal preference. I don't think anyone should criticize anyone who uses it. It's a solid translation.
Accepting a translation without carefully inspecting it is a recipe for heresy. There already exist “translation” that are heretical (such as the passion “translation” or the NWT) or that are unworthy to be used (the message). Do not just blindly accept a translation hoping the people behind it were good godly people with no bias.
I am a pastor and educated in Greek and Hebrew, which I read regularly, and I find Miss translations in the NIV all the time. Back in the day it was useful, but not anymore. I no longer recommend the NIV to anyone.
I used to give out NIVs to people (even while I used NKJVs) but when the TNIV came out, I turned my back and switched wholeheartedly to the English Sanctified Version.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
The NIV hasn't quite gone off the cliff yet, but I think it's on dangerous ground. Especially in light of the fact that a member of the translation team outright stated that one of the goals of the 2011 revision was to strike a compromise between complimentarians and egalitarians, when there should be no compromise on this front at all, if one holds true to biblical Christianity. As it stands, I feel much more comfortable recommending and using the slightly more literal and theologically conservative CSB, as an alternative to the NIV2011.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 I have seen this video before it's not so much the changes the niv made but the text it is based on is different in places from the textus receptus the text used for the modern translations not just the niv are older maniscrpts than the textus receptus so it could be said that certain words and phrases have been added down the centuries.
Why do people act like much better translations are hard to read? The ESV is just as easy to read and is a far better translation. Have we become so uneducated we need our Bibles to be written for children so that the adults can understand them?
You are dancing around the issues. The NIV update s were not necessary and done in hopes of getting new copyright via 10 percent change requirements and made a poor translation even worse . The examples of miss translating are so numerous such as translating rust for vermin in storing up treasures in heaven that are too blatant to ignore
The criticism is justified just like every other translation. Not all translations are made equally eith the same focus. Many are on equal playing field in terms of issues and others are superior for one reason or another. It's a complicated question and no one translation is perfect although people often have favorites. The NIV is fine but not my favorite.
I've found more literal translations can end up obscurring the meanings. Its best to have multiple translations. Also noticed how people will imagine two different translations as being more different than they are. Because we can attach more significance to one word in a passage than we should. I think the bible is better understood by reading full passages or entire books. Zeroing in on one word is a great way to misunderstand the Bible.
Thanks for this review. I'm from the Netherlands and would really like to have the Cultural backgrounds study bible. But they have three versions. An NKJV, NIV and another one, which I don't remember. I think I'm going for the NIV now, 'cause I have other dutch translations that are more literal. But I understand your concern about the next updates on this NIV. I hope they won't follow the CEB.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I personally wonder if the "gender" thing was Thomas Nelson wanting to sell more Bibles. I have seen NIV in the pews of UMC congregations that were liberal.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Have you ever done a comparison on the Wescott and Hort tradition vs the Nestle-Aland tradition? Just curious. I know the original issues with the Wescott and Hort manuscripts that formed a lot of the late 1800’s-early 1900’s Bible’s along with the NIV itself were about perceived “changes”. But as far as I’m aware the NA28 text is considered the most accurate to the 3rd Century manuscripts that were in the early church tradition, and aligns best with the New Testament quotes from the church fathers that clarify what was in use in the Bible at that time. So I guess I can see how the Textus Receptus tradition perceives the other Bible traditions as being corrupted but it would appear the Textus Receptus tradition has later additions and not other Bibles have “subtractions”. I bought into this belief a long time being a former KJO myself 😂😂😂 But yeah, I actually love the CSB most of all and then love the ESV best thereafter. I like bits and pieces from every translation I’ve seen best of all though. It’s true that reading multiple translations is just enlightening for the word 😁 Just stay away from the Passion Translation, Mirror Bible, and New World Translation and you’ll be good 😉😂
I love the 2011 NIV I use it as my reading edition but I do agree with you if they go full gender inclusive then it's really in my opinion no longer a good translation. I use the ESV now as my main Bible for study.
My childhood bible that I still use is the original 1979 NIV and I don’t find it gender inclusive really at all. I have used other translations of course and I love the poetry of the KJV and the RSV but I still use my NIV as my main bible…mostly cos I understand it best I suppose. I have a 1984 NIV but prefer the original.
Bibles derived from the CT are sold to new believers, just because the NIV is from the CT doesn't give it a right to be a sloppy translation, just another reason why I'm Not CT
"...decatholicize the Bible..." There’s a misconception that the Bible is the property (or even the product!) of the Roman Catholic church, and Protestants/Evangelicals are somehow appropriating it. This begs the question of whether the RC or the P/E are the true descendants of the early church.
All good thoughts Tim. Much of the criticism stems from the fact its publishers used a lot of aggressive marketing that helped it to replace the KJV as the most widely used version.
The NIV is just too prosaic - The ESV together with the King James I believe are your best bet. I myself am an Anglican - The closest thing to a Humanist still welcome in church
Interestingly, when one checks in the NT Greek we might find confusion of bibles 'putting in' gender exclusiveness, yet rather it might just actually be a case of 'gender bias' correction in English. Many bible readers are so familiar with the traditional rendering of the KJV model that we forget oftentimes to look at the original languages. For instance, in such passages as 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6a those masculine personal pronouns, including the word “man” often used in English translations, are entirely absent in the Greek! As for 1 Timothy 3:11, this usually has a footnote that it may be about wives of male diakoni or it may pertain to female diakonoi. We then must interpret scripture by scripture, and in this way we again look to Paul and find in Romans 16 it is he who mentions Phoebe as a diakonos of the church in Cenchreae. Thus, women deacons were in ministry in the early church. (*The term 'deaconess' did not come into use until the 4th century, and the word diakonos is the same word Paul applies to himself for being a minister.) So, my point being, as we look further into such passages for various English translations (as in the NIV 2011 etc), we can and do find good reasons for English words being rendered gender neuter or "inclusive" and this might give clarity per the Koine Greek. Hope that helped the discussion! Thanks for the content on your channel, brother! God bless!
Today's NIV (TNIV) is a great Study Bible. I am a Bible Collector, and I am glad that I was able to find an TNIV Study Bible. The notes are especially helpful. If it had visuals it would be even better, but as it stands it is just fine. Obviously critics do not do comparisons for the sake of research. Great video Tim.
Thank you, Tim for sharing your excellent observations on the NIV Bible translation and its standing in the face of gender inclusive language. I purchased the NIV 2011 version shortly after its introduction. This version was the first I had seen where brother or brethren had been translated as "brothers and sisters." Most of my peers use the NIV 1984 update and I'm comfortable with that.
I personally think the attacks on the NIV are unjustified. I have read the NIV for 35+ years and will continue to do so. I personally have no problems with English Bible translations being gender accurate. In a few places, in the New Testament when Paul is talking to a group of fellow believers, in the Greek he would say adelphoi, or brothers and sisters. The other attacks you didn’t mention was on the textual basis, one of the things that the NIV is constantly attacked for is “missing” verses and the use of footnotes (there’s another idea for a video). I also find nothing wrong with the NIV being more of a functional equivalent or balanced translation. Anyway, nice job on this.
The missing verse attacks are always from king James onlyists, they will attack anything that's not the KJV, they even attack the manuscripts. I say praise the Lord for so many wonderful translations.
Blood Bought Ministries completely and totally agree with you. What they totally fail to realize is that the “missing” verses are actually NOT missing at all, in the case of Matthew 17:21 and Matthew 18:11 is that those verses are in Mark 9:29 and Luke 19:10, the exact same parables being told in Matthew are being told in Mark and Luke. I mean, gee whiz, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out.
SINCE CATHOLICS CHAINED BIBLES TO POSTS I THINK WE NEED SOME SEPARATE TRADITIONS. BASED ON BIBLE..NOT MEN. WHEN NASB 95 USES WORDS LIKE BENUMBED. I APPRECIATE THE HONESTY AND READABILITY OF NIV. .SALEABILITY OF NIV MAKES IT AVAILABLE IN MORE FORMATS . AND CHEAPER. I LIKE NIV FOR CRITICAL TEXT. NKJV FOR TEXTUS RECEPTUS.
The NIV has it's place certainly I must admit to a preference for it's 1984 edition. I'm not such a fan of the 2011 edition, but I really am not fond of the more gender inclusive, or neutral translation approach.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 In the first place, I merely made a comment about the NIV. It is NOT MY BIBLE OF PREFERENCE! In the second place, I prefer TR text based Bible versions. I will, however, use other versions for points of reference. In the third place, I am NOT of the KJVO position. I have read many KJVO books and pamphlets Whatever they may or may not have been trying to convey, their style was Rude, and Pushy. Some of them being plain out obnoxious! I confess I do not know the languages the Scriptures were originally written in. That being said, I do not, at least, in the more word for word versions, see a significant difference in the meaning of what is being said. In the last place, it is I before E, except after C, therefore it is spelled piece, and not peice.
If you want to see how much of a train wreck a word for word translation can be look at the youngs literal translation. Its an amazing translation, but it is so difficult to read. I hear people claim the KJV and NASB to be the most literal translation, but they have nothing on the ylt. God bless. 😊
The NIV has been my favorite bible since 1984. Today I have the 2011 version and now I’m hearing from RUclips bible critics that I’m going to hell if I continue with the NIV bible. So now I’m to the point where I’m looking for a different translation, because I don’t want to go to hell. The problem is, I don’t know what translation that won’t causes me to go to hell. So which translation guarantees that I will go to heaven?
A Frisch Perspective Thank you for your quick response to my concerns!! Yes, Jesus is the only way to guarantee that you will go to Heaven!! Thank you for reminding me of the truth about the way to go to heaven!! So I guess the real question is, which translation is the least controversial? God bless you my brother in Christ
After years of wasting time finding out which is the correct version and why, i recommend you stick to your favorite Bible without fear. Any Bible that exalts Jesus and His commandments are legitimate. From what I've seen all Bibles are God's word, just avoid paraphrases. The doctrine of the Trinity is in all Bibles just not as obvious as in Textus Receptus Majority text Bibles like the King James. Jesus is Lord means he is LORD as in Jehovah. Once you understand this, any modern Bible can be used because they all tell us what is the will of God.
Tim... I recently visited...online, and several times...visited a sma;; ELCA Lutheran church/. The pastor is newly ordained/..this is his first church.. Anyway, I noticed that he avoids masculine pronouns when referring tonGod...choosing to repeat the word “God” , rather than saying he or him.. it sounds very awkward, and I find it to be disturbing. BTW...Whrn I was studying for ,my Master of Arts in Religion, I was reprimanded for referring to God as “He”. in a major paper....by the Director of the Lsy Pastoral Ministry Program ... in a Catholic institution that housed a seminary, the Permanent Diaconate Program, and LPMPM (called LAMP,). I was stunned... Itvwas pretty much change it, or not graduate...I wish now, that I had stood my ground..but did not want to throw away six years of work. This was in the mid nineties.
I loved the NIV 1984, but the NIV 2011 is horrible and actually changes the meaning from God’s Word. A typical aberration occurs in Proverbs 22:21. 1984 was according to the Word, “teaching you true and reliable words, so that you can give sound answers to him who sent you”; 2011, “teaching you to be honest and to speak truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve”. It goes from objective truth in the true words, to personal character of telling the truth. You can be mistaken about what is true and give a truthful answer according to your belief; but your belief about a thing can be in error, so your report, while truthful would not be sound. A comparison of changes between NIV 1984, TNIV, and NIV 2011 slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/new_text_in_niv2011.html
Yes Robert Morris preached Jesus was not God in the flesh,NIV Phil.2:6,7 shows it,guess what, he had a good case,KJV shows he was God in the flesh.Phil.2:7 had emptied meaning he got rid of His deity,KJV has reputation meaning he didnt brag on his deity thats big difference. remember false teachers can twist the word in any bible but NIV is the same as the New World Translation Jehovah Witness,and the Catholic bible.
Thanks Tim. I enjoy d this video. One major issue some have with the gender accurate language is that they say the preachers should study and understand the audience and teach that to their congregation. The only issue I have is that not all preachers are biblical scholars. (That mostly means that they don’t have access to very expensive seminary or choose not to spend $30-100k on seminary) I would venture to say that most preachers are not scholars, they are bible teachers. This is where the translations like the NIV, NLT, and CSB are so useful. They help the preacher/teacher correctly understand the audience which helps immensely with exegesis. One really nice thing about having faithful modern translations is that we don’t have to keep running to the Hebrew or Greek to be correct. It’s kind of funny to see some people interject Greek into their sermons when they simply don’t need to, the English is more than good enough more times than not. Just preach the word.
Thank you for the detailed explanation of why some people say the NIV is "not as good" a translation as others. Regarding the decatholicizong in remark by the person talking about tradition versus teaching, I would submit that catholic has nothing to do with it. There was no Catholic church when the new testament was written. What there was, starting with Jesus
Sorry - decatholicizing . . . and throughout the epistles, was an invalidation of the traditions (Talmud) imposed upon the Jewish people by their leadership as doctrine. The faith handed down by Jesus and spread by the apostles is what's being talked about: doctrine, which is teachings, not tradition. The whole context here is the Judaism of the time. Again, Catholicism, which has the same problem of elevation of traditions of men to the same status as biblical doctrine, has nothing to do with the translation of these passages.
I blame the King James Only movement for starting all this negativity. It was the Book by Gail Riplinger that pointed out the so called missing verses in the NIV and other translations that did not use the TR.
We have a lot of people here where I live that have very poor English, the NIV is a great translation for them. I would challenge any of these people saying the NIV is corrupt and all the usual nonsense to come down here to South Africa, Cape Town and then come work under these people, I will hook you up with a ministry that minister under the prostitutes, when you see how blessed these people are who get saved and the joy when they get to read and own the word of God in the NIV you might have a change if heart.
I don't like the NIV for myself, but the NIV most def has its use!
God bless you all.
Jonah Emery yes it has.
You are absolutely correct. Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, Jack Chick, 99% Independent Baptists ( I am of the 1% NASB 1977) are the main culprits for this foolishness.
I totally agree. I grew up on NIV, then KJV, then NKJV, and minister to others through NASB and ESV. I don't forget my roots in NIV that brought me to salvation and found the Lord is good. 1 Peter 2: 2-3
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 are you okay dude? Relax
I have found the NIV does aid the reader as a commentary within the translation. Take that as it is, it has blessed people and may be the best introduction to the bible for the new believer.
Try a CSB though, you’ll love it! GOD Bless 🙏🏼❤️
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit there buddy
@@narrowistheway77
Csb is good but I will still pick the NIV...
Yes, I think that statement does articulate that phenomena perfectly. Any scribe or interpreter would have to at the time it was given, how can we do better? I think that ESV gets them right more frequently but the verses NIV does better are ahead by a strong margin. That's coming from a guy that likes to analyze by reading apocryphal works, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan and occultist works too, look for the things that the "other" try to usurp and corrupt - trace that back to the origin of truth. As long as it all leads the student to the Logos-Christ Alpha/Omega in Revelation 19:11-16, it's worth studying. The light of truth casts long shadows among the obstacles of the world, search the shadows for contrast as you pass through them?
I was raised reading the NIV and it was only recently that I switched to a different version, the CSB. I absolutely love the NIV for how easy it was to read as a child and for people who aren’t proficient in their English it’s also amazing.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 The KJV is just one of many translations of the inspired Word, the Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek scriptures. The Modern translations use hundreds of manuscripts to create their base text and the KJV used about 10 manuscripts compiled by a Roman Catholic humanist.
You know Tim, I believe you're way off base when insulting the NLT while complimenting the NKJV . The nlt and niv both translate Rom 11:13 correctly while the nkjv totally misses the mark and diminishes greatly the great apostle to the gentiles..Paul (the only apostle to the gentiles)..Stop Mixing Doctrines!
@tonimccoy9778 we know that other apostles went to the Gentiles in the East, so it would seem that Paul was the apostle to some gentiles, but not all. God bless.
Niv is the most 'realistic' but accurate translation...and one can argue that realistic is more accurate than pure literalism. The problem I have with literal translation philosophy is we end up with a new language...namely 'Biblish'. This is a sign to me at least that something has definitely therefore been 'lost in translation'. That's why the Niv is so popular, because it strikes a very good balance between the two translation philosophies
The CSB is everything that the NIV tried to be in terms of readability. It’s also scratches the “literalness” itch thanks to its excellent footnotes that give the possible alternate renderings.
I personally love the NIV but also have the ESV, NASB, KJV, and NKJV. Would you recommend the CSB to someone who loves the NIV? I’m very curious now and would like CSB. God bless
I personally love the NIV but also have the ESV, NASB, KJV, and NKJV. Would you recommend the CSB to someone who loves the NIV? I’m very curious now and would like to try the CSB. God bless
@@777Bible I would, as it "draws from both Dynamic and formal equivalence translation philosophies". When doing Bible study i use it with the NIV (orig. version), NKJV, NASB and, reluctantly, the ESV (its RSV ancestry still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, are you SURE you scrubbed out all the Liberal leaven when writing the ESV?). Two complaints about the CSB, using "men and women" instead of "men" (c'mon, GROW UP and be "big" about it, if need be, put in an * to point to a clarifying footnote at the bottom of the page) and one place where they say Jesus was the angel who led the Israelites. I have an I.O.U. to research that. BTW my home church had a pastor who preached from the NKJV and i had no problem following in my NIV - until he read God's instructions for crossing the Jordan.
The short answer, *absolutely NOT*
I actually used to live across the street from Dr. Karen Jobes. She was a translator on the CBT, who put together the NIV. After speaking with her often, & after spending a few years researching all the versions (I own: ESV/NIV/NIV 87’/ NASB/NSRV/KJV/NKJV/CSB/HCSB/MEV) & where & how they actually came to be… not just shallow research most do like watching a video or something… I have concluded that while not perfect, the NIV is very well made. It’s surprisingly really accurate!!!
Those asking why the NIV removes passages - they should be asking, “why did the KJV *add* passages (1 John 5:7)??”
Most who hate on it… the arguments they’re making aren’t honestly valid usually. Such as what I said above about removing stuff.
NO it does not delete the idea that Jesus is God!! Read John 1:18 in the NIV vs the KJV. The NIV is more blunt actually about Jesus.
Very few bibles are even “bad” & we all know which they are. TPT/MESSAGE/WatchTower.
If a person wants something as literal to what was originally written… nothing can touch the NASB. If you want something slightly more readable without blowing much with the word for word.. ESV/ CSB & RSV are good. If you want 1 step down, more toward the readability… the NIV really shines. As does the NRSV. If you want the easiest to read… CEB, or NLT are the go to.
If you really want to use the T.R texts.. the KJV is fine, though it’s got many MORE problems than the NIV imo. (1 John 5:7 DIDNT EXIST prior to 1550 AD… KJV still has it today…)…the NKJV is the same, just updated wording… & then the MEV is even more updated language… all 3 have the same source text though.
The Bible I became saved with? NLT.
The Bible I read the most? NIV/NIV 87’
The Bible I use for teaching? NRSV/ESV.
The most middle ground between readability & word for word? CSB/HCSB.
The moral of this post… use which speaks best to you. Feel free in knowing they’re all good versions.
And please stay away from anyone who says without the KJV, you’re unsaved, or don’t have Gods word. These KJVO people can not be reasoned with, they also just ignore logic, & have arrogance on levels you wouldn’t imagine.
Excellent post, you have studied well.
On certain points I agree with you but not on the point that the KJV is flawed. I am not kjv only. I personally prefer the nkjv because the benefits in understanding far outweighs the differences between the two .I definetly prefer the byzantine text over the critical text.I am not Pentecostal but for people who like the kjv but have a hard time with the language I would recommend The Expositer Study Bible by Jimmy Swaggert..A kjv reader would like it well.thx Toni's husband
I have enjoyed your videos so much that I have even given you your very own folder so I can store your videos. LOL You always have such interesting analysis.
A literal translation is not always the most accurate translation. NIV is a good balance. It’s pretty much a bit of both styles. That’s why it’s so popular. Great video.
Mr R777. Agree with you 100%. I read kjv and nkjv. I believe the niv may be closer to kjv than the nkjv but it's more understandable..Blessings Toni's husband
The I Kings example is a good one that just bothers me to no end. Scripture warns of messing with the meaning of it and that meaning is communicated by the use of words so using man when it says man is the way it should be. Social changes should not impact translation. Just like God, He never changes, his word shouldn’t bend to the whims of the day. I want to read God’s word! I’m a little concerned about the church not standing strong enough behind good exegesis and hermeneutics.
NIV 1984 version uses the word man not successor. NKJV uses the word man also.
Thank you for this video. Again, very thoughtful and I like your examination of the NIV. My criticisms of the NIV2011 come out of extensive and current use of it. I'm an associate pastor of a church that uses the NIV. I teach from it every week and I have read through it 2-3 times (reading through it now again). What I don't like is how the NIV goes to great lengths, sometimes, to make the text gender inclusive or neutral. This is problematic for me personally because I want the scriptures to be as close to the original languages as possible when I'm studying it or doing personal devotions. I am also concerned about this particular translation and what it will look like down the road, as you mentioned in your video. Thanks, again!
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 I appreciate the comment and the link to the video. I didn't see all of the Bible references but in the first example, Psalm 10:5, it seems that the KJV has gotten that word "grievous" very, very wrong. The Hebrew word there is "yahilu" which is a verb that has the sense of "to make steady favorable progress" (English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear). In that particular case, the NIV (as well as the ESV, NKJV, NASB) got that word right in its translation. I think it would do you good to do some homework and study on your own and you just might find that the NIV is not a "demonic piece of garbage." Let me guess, you're a KJVO? Good day to you, sir.
I'm really enjoying your channel and your perspective!!
I always think we have to be wary, I have always used the NIV as my EDC but I feel there is a lot of value in having a more literal translation and a Hebrew/Greek Bible to bring along side it during study just to add layers of protection and clarity when we teach and are accountable for that teaching.
If I used the KJV as my EDC I would bring the NIV along side it as well.
I would really like to find a high quality parallel with NIV and ESV or something like that.
When the NIV first came out was really taken with it, and loved it so much I bought a study Bible in that version. Daily use wore thin, especially when comparing it to the KJV or NKJV. I don't mind the newer version of the NIV. Still use it to sometimes clarify the OT! I use it like study notes, or casual reading of stories. Deep Bible study to me is only. through KJV or NKJV. The NASB used to be one of my favorites, and still is when looking for a verse that says it straight out without fluff, or wordiness. They all have their own set of usefulness, in my view.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
LOL so many "expurts" and so little time. I've done plenty of research for decades, so a lot more than people younger than the shoes in my closet. A Bible unused is worthless. Use what speaks to you, and most people do tend towards getting the KJV, oddly enough, with enough study. Any version has the salvation message.
I use the 1979 NIV and it’s excellent at helping me understand the Old Testament. It’s been my main bible since I was 16. I’m in my 50’s now and have read other versions and while I’ll say it somewhat lacks the poetry of KJV, and still isn’t as wordy as the NSAB, it’s a great version for everyone. I’m not familiar with the versions past 1984 but I love the original. God bless 🙏
NIV, oddly enough is the version I have probably come to love the most. It has the most scholarship behind it, its probably one of the most scrutinized by translators, and it has one of the strongest cases for the deity of Christ. KJVonlyists will say that because its produced by Zondervan who publishes other books that are considered "ungodly", they assume the NIV is somehow corrupted or something. Its rediculous. The NIV is a great bible for accuracy and reading, and its easily my favorite for reading. Im super interested in the NET for study, that seems to have some really good scholarship involved.
100%. It looks that you’ve actually looked into the history of the different versions! Because funny enough… whenever people judge the NIV, they almost never have looked up anything about it.
It is actually a very accurate representation of the original text, which surprised me when I realized it
KJVO will also say “if you’re not KJVO… then you think Gods word is as buried for 400 yrs until the Dead Sea scrolls!!”
They don’t at all see the irony lol.. if KJVO is true.. that means NO ONE IN THE CHURCH HAD GODS WORD FOR 1,600+ YEARS UNTIL THE KJV!!!! Lol it’s nuts how they don’t even acknowledge that… their exact argument works against them… but even worse!!
@@BabyDoIIx I’ve actually cornered them on their logic, I ask them if people in Japan have the gospel if they can’t read 16th century English when they don’t understand English in the first place. Some actually believe you can’t saved without a kjv, and that blows my mind, but that’s the cult like beliefs of the kjv only crowd
Thanks for tackling this subject. I've been on the fence about buying a Schuyler PSQ in NIV for a few weeks now. I favor the critical text, believing it better reflects the autographs, but I don't really like the switch to gender inclusive language. I think the preacher or teacher should study the text well and know whether to apply it to men only or to men and women.
That is where the Rabbi's prove their wisdom. Living Hebrew, not just speaking it, does help. They'll tell you that male implies female and vice versa. But, over in USA espdcially, some are so petty in being literal and fundamentalist, you just can't win. We have Southern Baptist here in my African big city, and they are best referred to as "intellectually constipated.' They will split hairs but don't even why that OLD Bible of theirs isn't remotely as accurate as NIV or NET. People should really do proper research before hanging opinions out on the laundry lines. Some have been militant and offensive. And their Jesus drowned in half a beer. They even got the Name wrong: in Greek, the Angel told Miryam to call Him Yeshua. See what people had made of His name because of their typical ineptitude to pronunciate. Even if it was inerrently breathed, James I & IV added 100,000 mistakes. Fix that please, and educate the opinionated.
@@isiseshisewebhu
I would agree with your statement regarding the wisdom of the Rabbis... if I EVER ran into one that told me they prayed to JESUS..
but Romans 1:22 tells us regarding fallen Man...
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
and so that is where I place Non Christ believing Rabbis..
Excellent video, Tim! I really like the NIV, both the 1984 and 2011 editions. On the issue of "gender inclusive/accurate" language in the NIV2011, I find it pretty transparent... I actually had to look for it in most cases. To me, translation philosophy and textual basis are is a non-issues. With the NIV, you know exactly what you're getting (as is stated in the preface): a translation based on critical sources and is dynamic-equivalent. That's what makes it easy to read and understand as well as accurate.
Mike Powers Could not have said it any better than that my friend.
But the NIV is not a Dynamic-Equivalent. It is a mediating translation.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 I hope you will become a Christian soon, Lord willing.
@@timcarr6401
But NIV is better
I use the 1984 niv version, but the 2011 niv version has many changes that does can change the meaning of scripture. Not particularly adding or taking away verses, but the words chosen and phrasing tend to change the actual meanings. Preacherman Sage has a RUclips channel and does a pretty good job with comparisons from the 1984 version and the 2011 version. I personally would not use the 2011 version due to the changes. The 1984 edition is more comparable to the ESV to me.
Though the NLT is more thought for thought, I have found it to be faithful to the teachings of the Bible. I call it the Bible on training wheels because it sometimes repeats a verse at the end of a passage, combining the beginning statement with an earlier statement to bring the whole teaching together. Dry helpful in tying together some of Paul’s long discourse. In that sense it is more like a commentary than simply a literal translation.
A favorite devotional Bible for me is the Tyndall House People’s Parallel Bible, which is a side by side KJV and NLT. If I am having difficulty with some archaic words in KJV, I look at the NLT for clarification; and if I want a more precise translation while reading the NLT, I look at the KJV for clarification.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
We were raised to call it the "Nearly Inspired Version." Now as an adult, I stead clear of any translation that paraphrases like The Message. KJV, CSB (my default), and NASB for me all the way.
The fact we have so much debate on this and so much division in doctrinal beliefs and so much variety in translation is frustrating and does damage to the Kingdom.
As far as gender transparency, nearly all languages have gender specific articles for nouns. I was taught in first grade in '96 that when we don't know if the subject is male or female (sex) we use the male for default.
I wouldn't have a problem changing this rule if it weren't for the violent hatred for males in society today. It's pure politics.
An example of how literal is too literal is the original Douay at Isaiah 5.1b: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil." Accurate? Yes and no...it is accurate to the words, but it is actually "so right it's wrong!"
That actually makes a lot of sense.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Agree. Look at Psalm 16:7. If that verse was translated literally it would say, “my kidneys instruct me”. Of course that would make no sense to any English reader. You are right. Something can be “so right it’s wrong!”
@@carolbarlow8896 In fact the KJV does translate the term literally ("reins" being an archaism as "kidneys" - the word is related to "renal").
The NIV 1984 was my first bible in 2010. I continually choose that over the NLT for a "Functional Equivalence" translation. I find that even though the NLT and NIV84 are translated in the same spirit, the NIV84 seems to be more literal and I prefer this. Of course as I've grown in my walk I've added the KJV and ESV to my collection for reference for when I want to get real literal. Now my NIV84 is rough and molded so I'm looking to replace it, and fortunately I learned of this 2011 "update" so I'm searching used book stores and ebay :) for a "new" one since the NIV84 is still my preferred translation at this point in time.
I really wish that someone would just buy the publishing rights to the NIV84 and release it as the NIV84, I'd buy one on the day it releases :).
This right here. I don't mind the NIV2011 but the NIV84 is just special. I had one when I first started walking with Jesus but then my church switched to NKJV so I did too. The NIV84 just feels like home to me. I found a couple of clean used ones I'm thinking of reminding, but the modern typesetting changes are tough to go without.
For now I've settled on the CSB which really reminds me of the NIV84.
Given that God is all powerful he can find you through any translation if your heart is with Him. To the canaries in the coal mine- God Bless you too.
I stopped using the NIV before I even knew there were criticisms or issues about it. I just didn't care for it. The church I was attending at that time in my Christian walk was using the NIV almost exclusively, so I bought the cheapest one I could find as my Sunday-go-to-meeting Bible. At home, I used my King James. I guess that has always been my preference, along with the New King James. I was only a regular attendee of that church for a little over a year before I moved to my local Calvary Chapel, which was a KJV only church in the early 90's. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could find negatives about every translation. But firstly, I am not a scholar, so secondly, I just follow wherever the Holy Spirit leads!
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage they call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Thank you so much for uploading this video on an interesting and sensitive subject.
I've been debating for a while whether or not to pick up an NIV and recently a CSB Though, I have recently purchased a NET which may fill that hole in my Bible collection at least for a while and So far I have enjoyed its companionship to my NASB....guess I'll have to watch your videos on the CSB vs the NIV.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Thank you for your thoughtful video. I have great affection for several of our formal equivalence-based modern English translations but I also find some of the criticisms of the NIV and the New Living Translation to be infuriating. It is easy to review the qualifications of the many respected scholars on the NIV and NLT translation committees and the underlying ancient manuscripts they relied upon. On can disagree with their emphasis on the dynamic equivalence approach to translation or their occasional use of gender neutral pronouns. However, those who claim that the NIV is the product of some idiotic new world order conspiracy or that the NLT is not a legitimate scholarly-based translation are incorrect. Throughout the English speaking world, tens of millions of devoted followers of Jesus are especially thankful for the NIV and NLT. Both have done so much to enhance our ability to understand God’s Word and, as a result, strengthen our faith. Those who prefer the NIV or the NLT are often excoriated by prideful translation snobs and the KJV-only lunatic fringe. My bet is that when Christ makes his final accounting of our lives, our fondness for the easily understandable and immensely readable NIV and NLT will not be counted against us.
Exactly right. Thought for thought or dynamic equivalence is the best way to convey the meaning of what the text of Scripture is saying. Word for word is more difficult if you have a learning disability and can’t quite grasp what the Bible is telling you.
I love the NIV and the NLT because of how natural they sound in conversations and group Bible study. What is really irritating to me is when someone says Acts 2:38 in the NIV is translated “loosely” my question to them is, “So what?” Going thought for thought is the best way to understand the Bible and great for personal growth and study.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
My understanding of the NIV 1984 to 2011, was mostly based on the changing of the English language. So, could the trend you mention be really a trend in the English language, more than in the NIV. It would be interesting to expand this discuss to include the update to the NT in 1978 when whole bible was first release, and the change from 1978 to the 1984, to balance the idea of trends... Just adding to the discussion.
Sorta.. but a big thing they go after it for is they simply chose to say, “brothers & sisters” instead of “brothers”… which honestly is ridiculous to get upset over… that’s to assume women have no place in Gods world… also, if you look at the Greek… it’s very clearly shown that the term “BROTHERS” actually refers to men AND women… which yes.. it does seem strange, until you realize that it’s exactly the same as when you would while referring to a group of 5 women & 5 men as “Hey you GUYS…” every English speaker understands that “guys” is a euphemism, & refers to everyone… it’s just one of those funny things about langue… well ‘BROTHERS’ is the same thing :)
People attack it… & don’t at all understand these simple basic things.
I do remember that even the 1984 NIV got criticism, probably unjustly so. I do think those of us who are serious about reading and studying the word of God need to grapple with some of these things. Though I never used the 1984 NIV, it seems to have been a good translation. But for me--and I don't consider that this is just a matter of preference--any time you butcher the grammar of the language for the sake of cultural compliance you do damage to what is trying to be said. "They" or "them, plural, should never be a substitute for "he, him, she," or "her". For me, then, the 2011 NIV goes beyond what I could ever recommend to a disciple.
Are we really at the point where we need a paraphrase to understand God’s Word in our own language? “It’s so easy to read” has become more important to people than “it’s an accurate translation”. This is a disturbing trend. Several better translations are simple to understand (ESV, CSB, NKJV etc). If it is that hard for you to understand the Bible you need to spend more time in it.
Personally I think it’s a good translation for someone who isn’t familiar with scripture I use it with my KJV just to get more clarity, what I don’t like is verses are left out, words changed or added which changes the meaning, that’s why I use the KJV as my primary bible but I don’t have don’t an issue with modern translations they have their use, what I have noticed with new believers is they’ll get confused with some contradictions within modern translations or something cast doubt in their mind if they’re able to catch it, from my personal experience that’s what turned me back to KJV, reading through the NIV I noticed subtle changes which I never would have caught if I wasn’t taught with the King James first, but to each their own, I always encourage new believers to own at least one KJV in their personal Bible study if other translations are their primary. Great video keep up the great work God bless ✝️🙏🏽🕊♥️
I regularly look at multiple translations for when I teach and I am regularly impressed with the literal word choices of the KJV when compared to the original languages.
My go-to is the NASB. The 1954 NIV was my first and I still have it. I like to reference different translations including the ESV, NKJV and even the NLT.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@Imsaved777 Mistyped. 1984. I wasn't around in '54 either. lol
Yes it is justified.
If it were the only Bible someone could have to read it would be missing many important verses.
So what if it's easier to read. It only manages to gaslight.
I have the 1973 New Testament, 1978 edition, 1984 edition, 1996 inclusive language edition, 2005 today’s new international version, 2011 edition and a uk edition-it is so interesting to compare them all and to see how little in most places it has been revised. It is also interesting to see how the footnotes and text have sometimes been switched. The CBT through the years was very cautious about just putting out something new and replacing the old edition. With the 1996 edition the 1984 was sold right alongside it on the shelf in the UK. And for a time the TNIV was sold right alongside the 1984 here in the States.
i have & read the 1984 NIV version. i also study from it in conjunction with the NKJV. they should have left the 1984 version as written.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I've come to really love the NIV '11 as of late. The gender neutral pronouns don't bother me as much as it once did. As long as Biblica in their future updates don't continue to 'chase the culture' I can definitely stomach gender neutral pronouns and enjoy the the NIV for it's clarity.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
The only thing that I found “wrong” with the NIV specifically is that in 2 Samuel 14:2, it translates “lotion” for “oil”. In certain place it gets too modern.
My beef with the NIV and other less literal translations is that I don't care to know what the translators think the writers meant, just what the writers actually said. What they the translators think the writer meant, may not be what the writer meant but the writer meant what he actually wrote, and when this happens invariably the translators biases will be translated. I want to interpret the Bible myself, I don't want the translators to tell me what to think. This takes aways for me, the role of the Holy Spirit in the study of the Bible, this is why I'm not big into study bibles and commentaries (even though I every now again I look at it for some things, not necessarily the notes), it's their opinion and it doesn't always square with what is written in the Bible. Personally, for me, and this is my opinion, whoever can should try to read the Bible in its original language as much as is possible and while this is not as feasible as one would want to think, plus the Byzantine/Critical text issue, whoever can should and make their own conclusions.
So so you just read like and interlinear or ....?
There’s a new edition out, I’m curious to see your comments on this recent edition.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Back when the NIV2011 came out I was along with the crowd that criticized it for it’s gender inclusivity. However, as I’ve gone from someone who only appreciates a good literal translations to someone who kind of likes something more in the middle (CSB or NET), I’ve loosened up my criticisms about it. Especially since I believe now that if your pastor would preach those sections and would include the women in those exhortations, then why shouldn’t a bible translation clarify that point. If the passage is for both genders then I feel that it’s justified to render it for both genders. Of course only as a point to clarity and not, as you have shown to be the issue with the CEB, a point of obscurity. Loved the video Tim. What a Frisch Perspective!
Jonah Emery amen
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
What’s the difference between the 1985 and the 2011?
One of the big differences is in how they handle gender language. The 2011, for example, uses the gender neutral "they" instead of "he" in certain places if the referent is not specifically male.
@@AFrischPerspective Now another question. What’s your opinion of the New Century Version?
Can you share a link to the other video you were watching as I’m curious to see it for myself.
Thank you for your videos.
Gender neutral is legitimate if the original language is really not referring to one sex.
Yes Im 70 years old used the KJV my whole life .. I recently purchased an NIV ....love it.
Your videos are always well done, well thought out, and fairly balanced. I appreciate 🙏 your thoroughness.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
The NIV is my favourite translation, I love it because it's got a good mix of word for word and thought for thought, and that's why it's so popular. I've never found it's use of gender inclusive language an issue either, I've found that it only uses it when a passage is talking about men and women, and it does that because that's how English is spoken today, in fact the majority of modern Bible translations do the same thing, so if you attack the NIV you'd have to attack every 21st century translation apart from the ESV.
Love my brilliant NIV, God has truly blessed me with it. Don't care what the critics say especially from the KJV only cult
I heard a lecture by James White on King James Version and modern translations,I learn later from a friend that he is also the author of the book King James Only Controversy.I was wondering what can you say about this book.Thanks for making this video.
Great book
Thanks for your comment.By the way before I watch this video I bought a book Serious Omissions in the the NIV Bible by Keith Piper a fundamental baptist pastor from Australia,if you are interested you can google his name.In this book the NIV is not only criticize but other modern translations like NKJV,NASV,GNB and one can notice that the basis of comparison is the KJV which is a standard for the KJVonly which the position of the author.
6
First time I read the NIV, I questioned that I was reading the Bible or not...I had just come from the NASB which in turn followed the KJV according to our Pastor's choice. I have not read it since then, although I have heard that it corrects the NASB and/or the KJV...nut my next choice will probably be the NKJV. maybe.
Thank you.
Pretty much spent all of my early Christian walk under the NIV, way before I really knew about original languages. I only really knew about the KJV, which to me was just 'the bible'. Mum got an NKJV which I became hooked straight away. Then I heard talk of the NASB in association with the Pentecostal takeover where we lost a 3rd of my church (Baptist). Needless to say I blamed the bible over people's decision making. Anyway, that was over 30 years ago now. God bless.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Tim very good 👍 I enjoyed what you had to say I agree with everything you said. God Bless 🙌🙏❤
I'm bothered by the NIV using Morning Star to describe both God and Satan. It's wrong, thoughts?
Lucifer is used only once in the whole. KJV bible in Isaiah 14:12 (where NIV says morning star). I have heard a pastor say that in the original Hebrew it means "lightbringer", & it seems to have been his pre-fall name. Afterwards he was called many things including Satan (meaning adversary), the deceiver, beelzebub (meaning lord of dung), beliel (meaning worthless) and others. I believe it was meant to be more like an adjective than a proper name, reflecting his previous position as an angel of light. If it still bothers you, try to read several points of view from Hebrew language scholars. It helps me.
@@magicalowl1782 Lucifer is Latin, Satan is Hebrew, Devil is Greek, all describing the same person. When you remove the enemy's name it leads to confusion. That is why the King James and the New King James left that name in. Although I do use other translations to help me understand, they are water down and that's a fact.
@@philiph.5113 Yes, that sounds factual although I have a different viewpoint on "watered down". The NKJV cultural backgrounds study bible has good notes on this topic & discusses why KJV is only translation to use Lucifer. Unless you can read original Hebrew/Greek, everything else is a translation, and no translation is perfect. Have a blessed day, my brother 😊
The NIV is my least favorite version and it has nothing to do with any supposed issues with the translation itself. I just don't care for the way the language flows. I prefer KJV, NASB and NLT. I can appreciate what they were trying to do, namely, a translation that was a middle ground between literal and dynamic equivalence, but it's just not for me. But that's just a personal preference. I don't think anyone should criticize anyone who uses it. It's a solid translation.
Yet you acknowledged that the language of the NIV "flows."
They absolutely aren't justified. God's word is God's word. Nit picking translations is a dangerous thing, especially when it comes to new believers.
Accepting a translation without carefully inspecting it is a recipe for heresy. There already exist “translation” that are heretical (such as the passion “translation” or the NWT) or that are unworthy to be used (the message). Do not just blindly accept a translation hoping the people behind it were good godly people with no bias.
I am a pastor and educated in Greek and Hebrew, which I read regularly, and I find Miss translations in the NIV all the time. Back in the day it was useful, but not anymore. I no longer recommend the NIV to anyone.
The actor Sir David Suchet does beautiful readings of the NIV Bible available on Amazon Kindle Audio. Highly recommended.
I’ve listened to those as well! They are wonderful!
I used to give out NIVs to people (even while I used NKJVs) but when the TNIV came out, I turned my back and switched wholeheartedly to the English Sanctified Version.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 Yea, you can peddle your KJVOnly cult somewhere else.
The NIV hasn't quite gone off the cliff yet, but I think it's on dangerous ground. Especially in light of the fact that a member of the translation team outright stated that one of the goals of the 2011 revision was to strike a compromise between complimentarians and egalitarians, when there should be no compromise on this front at all, if one holds true to biblical Christianity.
As it stands, I feel much more comfortable recommending and using the slightly more literal and theologically conservative CSB, as an alternative to the NIV2011.
The NLT is similar, they say "descendant" as opposed to "successor".
The NIV may not be as litral than some translations but it is readable and understandable which is far more important in by opinion.
Agreed. I truly believe you gain more than you lose by reading the NIV over the ESV or NASB.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 I have seen this video before it's not so much the changes the niv made but the text it is based on is different in places from the textus receptus the text used for the modern translations not just the niv are older maniscrpts than the textus receptus so it could be said that certain words and phrases have been added down the centuries.
Why do people act like much better translations are hard to read? The ESV is just as easy to read and is a far better translation. Have we become so uneducated we need our Bibles to be written for children so that the adults can understand them?
@@SaneNoMore I like the ESV it's a fine translation I just think the NIV reads more natural as we would speak.
I seldom go to the NIV. it's too nonliteral.
You are dancing around the issues. The NIV update s were not necessary and done in hopes of getting new copyright via 10 percent change requirements and made a poor translation even worse . The examples of miss translating are so numerous such as translating rust for vermin in storing up treasures in heaven that are too blatant to ignore
The criticism is justified just like every other translation. Not all translations are made equally eith the same focus. Many are on equal playing field in terms of issues and others are superior for one reason or another. It's a complicated question and no one translation is perfect although people often have favorites. The NIV is fine but not my favorite.
My first ever bible was the niv 1984 got it at 2008 and still have and use it and i got esv and csb but i keep going back totge niv
I've found more literal translations can end up obscurring the meanings.
Its best to have multiple translations.
Also noticed how people will imagine two different translations as being more different than they are. Because we can attach more significance to one word in a passage than we should.
I think the bible is better understood by reading full passages or entire books. Zeroing in on one word is a great way to misunderstand the Bible.
Thanks for this review. I'm from the Netherlands and would really like to have the Cultural backgrounds study bible. But they have three versions. An NKJV, NIV and another one, which I don't remember. I think I'm going for the NIV now, 'cause I have other dutch translations that are more literal. But I understand your concern about the next updates on this NIV. I hope they won't follow the CEB.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
I personally wonder if the "gender" thing was Thomas Nelson wanting to sell more Bibles. I have seen NIV in the pews of UMC congregations that were liberal.
I used to criticize it
I really like it now!
I use ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, NLT and some arabic translations
NIV is becoming one of my favorite
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I hear a lot of praise for the NASB but for someone who speaks English as second language it is a bit hard for me!
@@thetruthshallsetyoufree2040 I use Rsv-Cv rsv wymbs esv
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
Have you ever done a comparison on the Wescott and Hort tradition vs the Nestle-Aland tradition? Just curious. I know the original issues with the Wescott and Hort manuscripts that formed a lot of the late 1800’s-early 1900’s Bible’s along with the NIV itself were about perceived “changes”. But as far as I’m aware the NA28 text is considered the most accurate to the 3rd Century manuscripts that were in the early church tradition, and aligns best with the New Testament quotes from the church fathers that clarify what was in use in the Bible at that time.
So I guess I can see how the Textus Receptus tradition perceives the other Bible traditions as being corrupted but it would appear the Textus Receptus tradition has later additions and not other Bibles have “subtractions”. I bought into this belief a long time being a former KJO myself 😂😂😂
But yeah, I actually love the CSB most of all and then love the ESV best thereafter. I like bits and pieces from every translation I’ve seen best of all though. It’s true that reading multiple translations is just enlightening for the word 😁
Just stay away from the Passion Translation, Mirror Bible, and New World Translation and you’ll be good 😉😂
Ex R2-D2 see
I love the 2011 NIV I use it as my reading edition but I do agree with you if they go full gender inclusive then it's really in my opinion no longer a good translation. I use the ESV now as my main Bible for study.
My childhood bible that I still use is the original 1979 NIV and I don’t find it gender inclusive really at all. I have used other translations of course and I love the poetry of the KJV and the RSV but I still use my NIV as my main bible…mostly cos I understand it best I suppose. I have a 1984 NIV but prefer the original.
Yes. Haven’t watched the video yet but that is the correct answer :)
Bibles derived from the CT are sold to new believers, just because the NIV is from the CT doesn't give it a right to be a sloppy translation, just another reason why I'm Not CT
"...decatholicize the Bible..." There’s a misconception that the Bible is the property (or even the product!) of the Roman Catholic church, and Protestants/Evangelicals are somehow appropriating it. This begs the question of whether the RC or the P/E are the true descendants of the early church.
All good thoughts Tim. Much of the criticism stems from the fact its publishers used a lot of aggressive marketing that helped it to replace the KJV as the most widely used version.
Good point
Totally agree with ya brother!
I always just thought that the NIV was attacked because it was the best selling modern translation.
The NIV is just too prosaic - The ESV together with the King James I believe are your best bet. I myself am an Anglican - The closest thing to a Humanist still welcome in church
Amazing tho How the King James Bible "the inspired WORD of God" is the only one that gets attacked on every side. Hmmm I believe I know why.
TNIV and NIV merge? That is one thing that bothered me about the new. I really liked the 84 NIV but the TNIV almost ruined it for me.
I have the 1984. It’s very easy to read.
Interestingly, when one checks in the NT Greek we might find confusion of bibles 'putting in' gender exclusiveness, yet rather it might just actually be a case of 'gender bias' correction in English. Many bible readers are so familiar with the traditional rendering of the KJV model that we forget oftentimes to look at the original languages. For instance, in such passages as 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6a those masculine personal pronouns, including the word “man” often used in English translations, are entirely absent in the Greek! As for 1 Timothy 3:11, this usually has a footnote that it may be about wives of male diakoni or it may pertain to female diakonoi. We then must interpret scripture by scripture, and in this way we again look to Paul and find in Romans 16 it is he who mentions Phoebe as a diakonos of the church in Cenchreae. Thus, women deacons were in ministry in the early church. (*The term 'deaconess' did not come into use until the 4th century, and the word diakonos is the same word Paul applies to himself for being a minister.) So, my point being, as we look further into such passages for various English translations (as in the NIV 2011 etc), we can and do find good reasons for English words being rendered gender neuter or "inclusive" and this might give clarity per the Koine Greek.
Hope that helped the discussion!
Thanks for the content on your channel, brother! God bless!
Today's NIV (TNIV) is a great Study Bible. I am a Bible Collector, and I am glad that I was able to find an TNIV Study Bible. The notes are especially helpful. If it had visuals it would be even better, but as it stands it is just fine. Obviously critics do not do comparisons for the sake of research. Great video Tim.
Seems like some bible translators have forgotten the message of Romans 12:2.
Thank you, Tim for sharing your excellent observations on the NIV Bible translation and its standing in the face of gender inclusive language. I purchased the NIV 2011 version shortly after its introduction. This version was the first I had seen where brother or brethren had been translated as "brothers and sisters." Most of my peers use the NIV 1984 update and I'm comfortable with that.
Not Just NIV, Other Bibles As Well.
I personally think the attacks on the NIV are unjustified. I have read the NIV for 35+ years and will continue to do so. I personally have no problems with English Bible translations being gender accurate. In a few places, in the New Testament when Paul is talking to a group of fellow believers, in the Greek he would say adelphoi, or brothers and sisters.
The other attacks you didn’t mention was on the textual basis, one of the things that the NIV is constantly attacked for is “missing” verses and the use of footnotes (there’s another idea for a video). I also find nothing wrong with the NIV being more of a functional equivalent or balanced translation. Anyway, nice job on this.
The missing verse attacks are always from king James onlyists, they will attack anything that's not the KJV, they even attack the manuscripts. I say praise the Lord for so many wonderful translations.
Blood Bought Ministries completely and totally agree with you. What they totally fail to realize is that the “missing” verses are actually NOT missing at all, in the case of Matthew 17:21 and Matthew 18:11 is that those verses are in Mark 9:29 and Luke 19:10, the exact same parables being told in Matthew are being told in Mark and Luke. I mean, gee whiz, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out.
I Don't Have A Problem With Modern Versions. I Heard You.
SINCE CATHOLICS CHAINED BIBLES TO POSTS I THINK WE NEED SOME SEPARATE TRADITIONS. BASED ON BIBLE..NOT MEN. WHEN NASB 95 USES WORDS LIKE BENUMBED. I APPRECIATE THE HONESTY AND READABILITY OF NIV. .SALEABILITY OF NIV MAKES IT AVAILABLE IN MORE FORMATS . AND CHEAPER. I LIKE NIV FOR CRITICAL TEXT. NKJV FOR TEXTUS RECEPTUS.
Or, just use a better translation that is just as available.. such as the ESV or NKJV (with footnotes).
The NIV has it's place certainly
I must admit to a preference for it's 1984 edition. I'm not such a fan of the 2011 edition, but I really am not fond of the more gender inclusive, or neutral translation approach.
Take a look at the changes they made and youll find out what their intentions really were with this demonic peice of garbage you call a bible. ruclips.net/video/oDsor5TjmSU/видео.html
@@bradytheperson7050 In the first place, I merely made a comment about the NIV. It is NOT MY BIBLE OF PREFERENCE!
In the second place, I prefer TR text based Bible versions. I will, however, use other versions for points of reference.
In the third place, I am NOT of the KJVO position. I have read many KJVO books and pamphlets
Whatever they may or may not have been trying to convey, their style was Rude, and Pushy. Some of them being plain out obnoxious!
I confess I do not know the languages the Scriptures were originally written in. That being said, I do not, at least, in the more word for word versions, see a significant difference in the meaning of what is being said.
In the last place, it is I before E, except after C, therefore it is spelled piece, and not peice.
Sooooo The NIV Can't Please Either Side.
A Frisch Perspective? 😵
OH !! 😃 I Get It !! 🤓
If you want to see how much of a train wreck a word for word translation can be look at the youngs literal translation. Its an amazing translation, but it is so difficult to read. I hear people claim the KJV and NASB to be the most literal translation, but they have nothing on the ylt. God bless. 😊
The NIV has been my favorite bible since 1984. Today I have the 2011 version and now I’m hearing from RUclips bible critics that I’m going to hell if I continue with the NIV bible. So now I’m to the point where I’m looking for a different translation, because I don’t want to go to hell. The problem is, I don’t know what translation that won’t causes me to go to hell. So which translation guarantees that I will go to heaven?
Only Jesus guarantees that you will go to heaven. Trust Him, and do not listen to people who say that a certain version will cause you to go to hell.
A Frisch Perspective Thank you for your quick response to my concerns!! Yes, Jesus is the only way to guarantee that you will go to Heaven!! Thank you for reminding me of the truth about the way to go to heaven!! So I guess the real question is, which translation is the least controversial? God bless you my brother in Christ
After years of wasting time finding out which is the correct version and why, i recommend you stick to your favorite Bible without fear. Any Bible that exalts Jesus and His commandments are legitimate. From what I've seen all Bibles are God's word, just avoid paraphrases. The doctrine of the Trinity is in all Bibles just not as obvious as in Textus Receptus Majority text Bibles like the King James. Jesus is Lord means he is LORD as in Jehovah. Once you understand this, any modern Bible can be used because they all tell us what is the will of God.
Criticisms of Bible translations are almost always based on ignorance. The NIV2011 is a great translation.
Tim... I recently visited...online, and several times...visited a sma;; ELCA Lutheran church/. The pastor is newly ordained/..this is his first church.. Anyway, I noticed that he avoids masculine pronouns when referring tonGod...choosing to repeat the word “God” , rather than saying he or him.. it sounds very awkward, and I find it to be disturbing.
BTW...Whrn I was studying for ,my Master of Arts in Religion, I was reprimanded for referring to God as “He”. in a major paper....by the Director of the Lsy Pastoral Ministry Program ... in a Catholic institution that housed a seminary, the Permanent Diaconate Program, and LPMPM (called LAMP,). I was stunned... Itvwas pretty much change it, or not graduate...I wish now, that I had stood my ground..but did not want to throw away six years of work. This was in the mid nineties.
Wow! So you've seen where the anti-masculine agenda can take things.
Sorry I meant the 1984.
I loved the NIV 1984, but the NIV 2011 is horrible and actually changes the meaning from God’s Word. A typical aberration occurs in Proverbs 22:21. 1984 was according to the Word, “teaching you true and reliable words, so that you can give sound answers to him who sent you”; 2011, “teaching you to be honest and to speak truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve”. It goes from objective truth in the true words, to personal character of telling the truth. You can be mistaken about what is true and give a truthful answer according to your belief; but your belief about a thing can be in error, so your report, while truthful would not be sound.
A comparison of changes between NIV 1984, TNIV, and NIV 2011
slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/new_text_in_niv2011.html
Yes Robert Morris preached Jesus was not God in the flesh,NIV Phil.2:6,7 shows it,guess what, he had a good case,KJV shows he was God in the flesh.Phil.2:7 had emptied meaning he got rid of His deity,KJV has reputation meaning he didnt brag on his deity thats big difference. remember false teachers can twist the word in any bible but NIV is the same as the New World Translation Jehovah Witness,and the Catholic bible.
I dont really care for the NIV the NLT is okay I guess.I like the CSB but the NKJV is my go to bible simply because i grew up on the NKJV
Thanks Tim. I enjoy d this video. One major issue some have with the gender accurate language is that they say the preachers should study and understand the audience and teach that to their congregation.
The only issue I have is that not all preachers are biblical scholars. (That mostly means that they don’t have access to very expensive seminary or choose not to spend $30-100k on seminary) I would venture to say that most preachers are not scholars, they are bible teachers.
This is where the translations like the NIV, NLT, and CSB are so useful. They help the preacher/teacher correctly understand the audience which helps immensely with exegesis. One really nice thing about having faithful modern translations is that we don’t have to keep running to the Hebrew or Greek to be correct. It’s kind of funny to see some people interject Greek into their sermons when they simply don’t need to, the English is more than good enough more times than not. Just preach the word.
Hi. I Have A Older Sister, And She Says I'm Too Literal.
Thank you for the detailed explanation of why some people say the NIV is "not as good" a translation as others. Regarding the decatholicizong in remark by the person talking about tradition versus teaching, I would submit that catholic has nothing to do with it. There was no Catholic church when the new testament was written. What there was, starting with Jesus
Sorry - decatholicizing . . . and throughout the epistles, was an invalidation of the traditions (Talmud) imposed upon the Jewish people by their leadership as doctrine. The faith handed down by Jesus and spread by the apostles is what's being talked about: doctrine, which is teachings, not tradition. The whole context here is the Judaism of the time. Again, Catholicism, which has the same problem of elevation of traditions of men to the same status as biblical doctrine, has nothing to do with the translation of these passages.