The NIV Bible is Erroneous

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.

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.