Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The New International Version of the Bible(NIV) isn't a very accurate translation of the Bible.

The NIV is an attempt at translating that takes into account theological interpretation during the translation process. This means they look for a way to translate it that will support their interpretation as often as possible, and not an actual direct translation.

Thus, the NIV is worthless.

Does anyone disagree with this?

IMO NO, look at the King James as early as 1611..Possilbly 1500's and the Geneva with reformer notes.(important!)..............it is worth the time if you want to see the changes.............you can find them on line.

Originally posted by Regret
The New International Version of the Bible(NIV) isn't a very accurate translation of the Bible.

The NIV is an attempt at translating that takes into account theological interpretation during the translation process. This means they look for a way to translate it that will support their interpretation as often as possible, and not an actual direct translation.

Thus, the NIV is worthless.

Does anyone disagree with this?

No.

Yes, the NIV is erroneous folks beware of it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
IMO NO, look at the King James as early as 1611..Possilbly 1500's and the Geneva with reformer notes.(important!)..............it is worth the time if you want to see the changes.............you can find them on line.

All translations hold error, the only means to verify such is to assess the translation in relation to as early a text as possible in the original language.

With the NIV I am referring to the fact that it is only an attempt to translate by including text that supports a set of beliefs, regardless of accuracy. The King James and others may include some of this, but that was not the overall intent with the translation process in the majority of translations.

Originally posted by Regret
All translations hold error, the only means to verify such is to assess the translation in relation to as early a text as possible in the original language.

Which is a major flaw of The Bible. If you translate a collection of writings in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Demotic and so on, into American English then you're gonna have more translation ****-ups then you can count.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is a major flaw of The Bible. If you translate a collection of writings in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Demotic and so on, into American English then you're gonna have more translation ****-ups then you can count.

True, it's inevitable...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is a major flaw of The Bible. If you translate a collection of writings in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Demotic and so on, into American English then you're gonna have more translation ****-ups then you can count.

It is a flaw of the translation, not necessarily of the Bible itself. It does however totally negate the idea of an infallible Bible, imo.

Originally posted by Regret
All translations hold error, the only means to verify such is to assess the translation in relation to as early a text as possible in the original language.

With the NIV I am referring to the fact that it is only an attempt to translate by including text that supports a set of beliefs, regardless of accuracy. The King James and others may include some of this, but that was not the overall intent with the translation process in the majority of translations. I did the research on the writings of the bible ..............this is what I got.

Here

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

Infact the Vatican will NOT release anything on early Scripture............makes you wonder why?



Also I tired to get the original Greek, but it was told to me that there is non.,...it is infact Latin, and what we think is the original Greek is not not, but a Greek taken from the Latin...........soooooo...there is no likes to it except from the Roman Catholic church who won't release any documents, even under display or glass as they do many saints............you do the study,,...........and you make up your own mind

With Love.

And eventually the NIV will become the meat and potatoes of Christianity and then somebody else will reinterpret it... Where does the madness end? Unless someone has a copy of a Bible dating to around the time of Christ, the Bible is just a book that has been rewritten and interpreted repeatedly by man and therefore is subject to mans flaws.

what a person really needs to see all the changes is a bble that shows many interpitations of others...........though you WILL NOT FIND an older Geneva of 1611 King James bible..............oh, btw the Geneva is older than the 1611 King Jamaes..........It is what the Pilgrims brought over, though in German, it can be seen on line in english

Originally posted by Regret
It is a flaw of the translation, not necessarily of the Bible itself. It does however totally negate the idea of an infallible Bible, imo.

Naturally - the Bible fails to transfer and transcend the language barrier.

But I have little trouble with this version of the Bible. I do a fair bit of history at university to complement my other studies - I have three different additions of the Livy's Hannibalic War - the Penguin, the Oxford and the Cambridge. As well as a Loab version.

All translate differently, all have different footnotes and endnotes and introductions that show differences in the translators understanding of the text - they all vary a little. But all are valid, in a way, it is all about interpretation.

They are translated well, but each offers a different view of the original text. Which is the most correct? Hard to say (but not the Penguin) - who is to say the people who did this latest version of the Bible are not in fact the ones who have made the most accurate translation? Simply because it differs from earlier version?

The Vulgate was I think the original bible,..........and in Latin for those that no it not............they claim it was takin from the original Hebrew and Greek, though not such a source, and when asked to deluge it they wont......A YOU MUST ANSWER YOURSELF WHY??........IT COULD BE UNDER CLASS OR KNOW TO AT LEAST SOMEONE, IN? ........again a link.http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible9.htm

What is the Vatican hiding? All Christian relitions stem from THIS!!

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/comparison.asp?wpc=comparisions.asp&wpp=a

A Quick Comparison of Bible Versions

I prefer to see direction translations from Hebrew/Greek.

However, as usual, Chick's tracts portray something erroneously; my own NIV Bible has footnotes that state when text is missing.

And, that little "derpiderp" thing at the bottom doesn't count.

I did give the link

Also, in good Bibles, there are footnotes and stuff to explain the particular text in relation to the culture at the time.

(For instance, when the man asks Jesus if he can "bury his father"--what's not included is that the man's father wasn't actually dead but to "bury one's father" was an expression used in those times; the guy wanted to get rich prior to following Jesus, if I recall correctly.)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/comparison.asp?wpc=comparisions.asp&wpp=a

A Quick Comparison of Bible Versions

Sigh. Siiiiigh. Once again an example of Chick taking things out of context and incorrectly.

So now his attacks are against many differen't types of Christians and types of Bibles. Maybe he should make his own Bible.

The church never wanted it translated anyway... You can't have the masses coming up with their own interpetations. Martin Luther changed all that.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I prefer to see direction translations from Hebrew/Greek.

However, as usual, Chick's tracts portray something erroneously; my I t. I tried to do the same, but it all comes from Latin, which they say is from the originals.......and when I did research that, I found there were not originals,..........the Greek is translated from the Latin......which means there is no original Greek,. and the Hebrew is just the same............I did check it al out............wouldn't put my soul on the line for nothing ya know amongst with other studies...............WHERE IS THE VATICAN WITH THESE ORIGINAL WRITINGS??..............NOT DISPLAYED EVER...YOU KNOW WHY? THERE IS NONE!

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sigh. Siiiiigh. Once again an example of Chick taking things out of context and incorrectly.

So now his attacks are against many differen't types of Christians and types of Bibles. Maybe he should make his own Bible.

Why do you call his comparative analysis an attack? Is exposing the truth of something an attack?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I tried to do the same, but it all comes from Latin, which they say is from the originals.......and when I did research that, I found there were not originals,..........the Greek is translated from the Latin......which means there is no original Greek,. and the Hebrew is just the same............I did check it al out............wouldn't put my soul on the line for nothing ya know amongst with other studies...............WHERE IS THE VATICAN WITH THESE ORIGINAL WRITINGS??..............NOT DISPLAYED EVER...YOU KNOW WHY? THERE IS NONE!

From my understanding the oldest surviving complete manuscript is a latin vulgate. We do however have myriad other texts that, while not complete, do give us another view on how to translate the bible. Many scholarly bibles actually give multiple translations in footnotes or point out differences between various ancient manuscripts.

I found an article that says that the oldest surviving New Testament manuscript fragment is a piece of the Gospel of John from about 125 AD. Check here to read the full article.

Heck, even the dead sea scrolls give a more ancient picture than any latin vulgate. They are dated between 400 BC and 200 AD and contain several complete copies of Isaiah. There are lots of Hebrew texts and Greek texts that predate the Vulgate, they just don't exist as a "bible", but rather as separate texts.

There's plenty of info out there for modern translators to work on, but just for day to day use I prefer the KJV.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I tried to do the same, but it all comes from Latin, which they say is from the originals.......and when I did research that, I found there were not originals,..........the Greek is translated from the Latin......which means there is no original Greek,. and the Hebrew is just the same............I did check it al out............wouldn't put my soul on the line for nothing ya know amongst with other studies...............WHERE IS THE VATICAN WITH THESE ORIGINAL WRITINGS??..............NOT DISPLAYED EVER...YOU KNOW WHY? THERE IS NONE!
Because they succumbed to the wear and tear of time?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you call his comparative analysis an attack? Is exposing the truth of something an attack?

Because if a person were to read it and just accept it they would be far from getting the whole picture. It presents a flawed image of the whole, taken out of conexts and failing to address why this form of the Bible was approached as such.

Basically like all Chick works - light on actual information, heavy on situational material chosen to get his point across (pretty much always wrong.)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yes, the NIV is erroneous folks beware of it.

Well, it is the bible, so I couldn't disagree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, it is the bible, so I couldn't disagree.

Cheeky devil. (That sounded a lot more camp then I thought it would.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because if a person were to read it and just accept it they would be far from getting the whole picture. It presents a flawed image of the whole, taken out of conexts and failing to address why this form of the Bible was approached as such.

Basically like all Chick works - light on actual information, heavy on situational material chosen to get his point across (pretty much always wrong.)

God's Word should be translated accurately and in keeping with certain guidelines. God has a very stern warning for and has pronounced a very serious condemnaton on those who have added to or taken away from His Holy Word. The NIV as well as other Bible translations are guilty of taken away portions of God's holy text.

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. B]

NIV is erroneous... and which one is not? KJV? Oh com'on.

Translations are not really important... What important in the Bible is...

the MESSAGE.

And the KJV was the same as the NIV at one point...a re-hased modern version.

I always liked the KJV.......but the Geneva Bible with Reformer notes is a really cool Bible too. Interesting history about it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God's Word should be translated accurately and in keeping with certain guidelines. God has a very stern warning for and has pronounced a very serious condemnaton on those who have added to or taken away from His Holy Word. The NIV as well as other Bible translations are guilty of taken away portions of God's holy text.

Am I an authroity on Biblical (or any sort of) translations? No. Or you? I suspect not. I highly doubt Chick is either.

But I know there would be good reasons why the NIV was put together as it was, by such experts. Ultimately unless you are reading from an original copy in its original language most versions will be different in one form or another. Some more then others - it is what happens when something crosses languages. It is mostly unavoidable.

And even amongst "original sources" - don't think the ancients were adverse to to editing. Without looking at the original works as penned by Luke and co. it is just as possible no0 versio of the Bible is true to exactly what they wrote.

Hmmm. Funny about that quote there. Considering that the Bible itself wasn't put together by the Romans until at least a little bit after all the works had been written, and oh the works the Roman's decided as unsuitable for inclusion in the Bible...

I think that if you really believe that "The Bible" is the word of your God, you should read it in the original language as your God intended it to be read. If you can't go through the trouble of learning those languages, you are not a very good believer anyways.

Yes like the Jews do, and they would understand it much better, well the Torah, and the OT, but there is no original greek. I tried to find it. What we call the original greek for the NT really came from Latin...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that if you really believe that "The Bible" is the word of your God, you should read it in the original language as your God intended it to be read. If you can't go through the trouble of learning those languages, you are not a very good believer anyways.

very true.

The Bible was written in other languages for a reason...to make it easy to gain new tax sources.

Originally posted by Alliance
very true.

The Bible was written in other languages for a reason...to make it easy to gain new tax sources.

Actually it was originally translated to give the poor (uneducated) access to the teachings in it without having to go to a priest. That reason may not exist now, but in the middle ages you had to either be in the clergy or nobility to gain access to education.

The bible was chained up.......and you could be put to death for owning one. It is strange though that the Pope says that gods holy language was Latin......what a laugh........god didn't have the Hebrews write it down in Latin........lol

and also many many things makes me wonder how ???? i did read many chapter from the site bible gate away and the bible there in every language so i always try as much as i can and ask people who are christian so i know the diffrents

Originally posted by docb77
Actually it was originally translated to give the poor (uneducated) access to the teachings in it without having to go to a priest. That reason may not exist now, but in the middle ages you had to either be in the clergy or nobility to gain access to education.

I think we're on the same page. It was written so you could read it without the education needed to speak Latin, but you were still expected to get the teacheings tehmselves from your Lords priest.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

I love this site.

And if you can only get the word of god from the Bishop or priest, then they have control over how it is taught to you.