The New International Version (NIV) is a readable and generally reliable English Bible translation, but it is not a strictly word-for-word translation. It uses a combination of word-for-word and thought-for-thought rendering, and its translators sometimes incorporate interpretation into the English wording. For careful study, readers may therefore compare it with more formally equivalent translations such as the NASB, ESV, NKJV, or KJV.
The NIV is not “as bad” as some critics claim, and it does not remove the central teachings of Christianity. The plan of salvation is contained in the NIV which the Holy Spirit will honor by operating off the truth of His Word. I also believe an individual can become born again by reading from the NIV and lead meaningful Christian lives.
What kind of translation is the NIV?
All translation includes an element of interpretation because no two languages are exactly the same, but the NIV seems to put too much interpretation into the translation process, thereby excluding possible interpretations that one might rather follow. The Dynamic Equivalence translation leaves a lot to be desired.
More Readable - NLT, HCSB, NIV More Literal - NASB, ESV, HCSB. Generally the ESV has been described as more literal than the NIV and more readable (i.e. less literal) than the NASB.
It is a word-for-word, and thought-for-thought rendering. According to the translators, the primary goal of optimal equivalence translations is "to convey a sense of the original text with as much clarity as possible". To that end, the ancient source texts were exhaustively scrutinized at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) to determine its original meaning and intention.
Afterwards, using the best language tools available, the semantic and linguistic equivalents were translated into as readable a text as possible. Most charts locate the HCSB closer to the ESV than to the NIV on a continuum.
Why the NIV is easy to read
The NIV flows SO MUCH smoother in my opinion and I retain more. Professor Dan Wallace has said of the NIV: "It is so readable that it has no memorable expressions, nothing that lingers in the mind. This is a serious problem for the NIV that is not always acknowledged."
The smooth read in the NIV is what I like best, unfortunetly the verses seem somewhat forgettable and do not stick in my mind like the KJV or ESV. The English is at a lower level and not as precise in it's meaning.
Are you looking for a quick read through the whole book hoping to gain some fresh insights? Use an easy reading Bible. Do you want to move slower in order to absorb scripture and remember it? Use a Bible with good cadance and gravitas.
I am not a fan of the NIV. However I would rather hear that someone was reading 20 pages a day in the NIV then 0 pages in the ONLY-PERFECT-VERSION (what ever you think that is). My point is simple, reading the word is more important than all of this. Once you are reading it, however you should be more critical/discerning.
Where interpretation affects the wording
Psalm 2:7
The NIVs use of "today I have become your father" vs. "today I have begotten you" (ESV - Psalm 2). Yes, Matthew, your example using Psalm 2 is a great example of the interpretation being imposed on the text. Father vs. begotten.
This example illustrates the difference between a translation that explains the apparent meaning for the reader and one that preserves a more direct formal correspondence. “Become your father” gives an interpretive rendering, while “begotten you” leaves more of the wording and possible interpretation before the reader.
1 John 2:2
Example of dynamic equivalent tendency in NIV - the NIV renders ἱλασμός (propitiation) in 1 John 2:2 as "atoning sacrifice." Not terrible. However, it tends to skew the translation in the direction of expiation rather than propitiation (as in ESV and HCSB).
In other words, the wrath of a holy God is missed and only the wiping away of our sin is in view. I believe that ἱλασμός contains both ideas in 1 John 2. Sure, I could explain the meaning of "atoning sacrifice" (NIV) or "sacrifice that atones for our sins" (NLT) as including both the idea of wiping clean my slate and assuaging the righteous wrath of a holy God.
But, call me old fashioned, but I like that the ESV, NASB, and HCSB more corrrectly translate it as "propitiation." The example I cited in an earlier post about propitiation in 1 John 2 is a case in point.
Gender-related wording
The TNIV goes even further, by routining translating "brethren" or "brothers" as "sisters and brothers." Note 1 Cor 7:24: "Brothers and sisters, all of you, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation in which God called you."
This issue concerns how a translator represents a word whose meaning may be broader than a literal English masculine plural. It is therefore a question of translation policy and interpretation, not evidence that the NIV has removed the doctrines of Christianity.
Claims about omitted verses and words
I understand that NIV has removed 64,575 words from the Bible and NIV has removed 45 complete verses. Can any one throw some light on these dangerous facts?
Centuries back a "manuscript" was a copy of one before it. Now these Manuscripts were painstakingly copied and mostly word for word. Ever once in a while someone who copied would add a comment, not to detract but to help understand that area of verse better.
The main verse to show this is 1 John 5:7 also known as the Comma Johanneum. When some try to disparage the NIV it was meticulously researched. Yes there are a few verses different, some NIVs with foot notes will explain why.
Portions of text not translated and additions to others. Even from its own Eclectic text. There are many.
Differences between English editions can result from the manuscript base chosen by the translators and from whether a passage is regarded as original to the earliest available form of the text. A footnote can preserve awareness of a textual variant even when the main text does not print the longer wording.
For over a 2000 year period of time no other book has that degree of accuracy. Of all of the modern translations, bibles the countless manuscripts a good 96% of the bible is spot on.
“The LORD of hosts” and translation choices
Very prominent in the KJV Old Testament we find the title "Lord of hosts" and its variation "Lord God of hosts" referenced in 273 verses. Significant? I certainly believe so. "LORD" (self existent, eternal) "of hosts" (army, warfare, of angels, of sun, moon and stars, the whole of creation).
So who is this LORD of hosts? 1 Samuel 4:4 tells us he dwells between the cherubims on the ark of the covenant. In 1 Samuel 17:45 David told Goliath ". I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied."
David declares that the LORD of Hosts is his King and his God. "Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God." (Psalms 84:3)
A very familiar passage which is recited frequently from pulpits during the Christmas season is Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Rarely do we hear the next verse, verse 7 “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”
Who will execute, bring to pass, make it happen? The LORD of hosts will perform this. NIV substitutes “LORD Almighty. Isaiah states in 44:6 that the LORD of hosts is the redeemer, the first and the last, the only God.
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” By comparison the NIV substitutes “the LORD Almighty” and “starry host” for “Lord of Hosts”.
The title “LORD of hosts” does not even appear in the NIV. This illustrates how a translation may preserve the basic referent while choosing a different English expression. Readers who consider the precise title significant may prefer to consult a translation that retains “LORD of hosts” more consistently.
Textual and theological reliability
Most of the anti-NIV comes from the KJV Only crowd. They believe that the KJV is they ONLY true "pure" word of God in English there is and measure ever other bible to that version.
That being said one must then research and learn of the history of the bible translated into English. In the most simplistic answer I can give is this reason for any discrepancy: the manuscripts.
The NIV was produced through examination of the ancient source texts, and differences from the KJV often reflect manuscript evidence and translation decisions rather than an intention to remove Christian doctrine. The NIV does not teach heresy, although some readers consider particular renderings insufficiently precise for detailed theological study.
While I do NOT worry that any of the English Bibles out today will teach heresy, some are just not careful enough for my tastes. This is true of paraphrases (TEV) done by translators with unacceptable views of inspiration and dynamic equivalent works done by people with an evangelical view of scripture (NIV).
I also appreciate that the translators of the NASB, ESV, and HCSB (BTW the three translations that Mohler says are the only ones he recommends for serious study purposes) all held to inerrancy. That cannot be said for many of the other translations.
The NIV for reading and the NIV for study
Is is bad to use the NIV as the main reading bible and ESV/NASB/KJV for actual study? any thoughts? But it also depends on what you are using your Bible for.
Some of the watered down versions (ie, niv, todays english perversion, etc) are O.K. for private reading. But if you are going to build doctrine or inform a liberal theologian of the errors of his ways, you would want a word for word translation that is precise.
What you are using your Bible for might be relevant. The one you read is the best. Stive for the "best" translation that you can find. But never make the striving more important than the reading.
Once you are reading it, however you should be more critical/discerning. The other versions are used to help understand what the word of God is saying and what it means. Some of the modern versions are fine for helping to expound the meaning and to make clear what scripture is saying.
Like many of us on the PB, I am spoiled by my Greek and Hebrew studies. Dynamic equivalent translations and paraphrases just don't "do it for me" anymore. However I would rather hear that someone was reading 20 pages a day in the NIV then 0 pages in the ONLY-PERFECT-VERSION (what ever you think that is).
Comparing the NIV with other translations
| Purpose or characteristic | Translation approach or observation |
|---|---|
| Quick reading and comprehension | More Readable - NLT, HCSB, NIV |
| More literal study | More Literal - NASB, ESV, HCSB |
| Memorable or literary wording | Use a Bible with good cadance and gravitas. |
| Comparison of difficult passages | Compare other translations to get the true meaning of Scripture |
The ESV is a tough read for me. My wife and I do our morning devotions and reading through the Bible in it. Frankly, I wish that the Spirit of the Reformation Bible was available in the ESV.
In so far as the ESV is a revision of the RSV (i.e., making it more conservative theologically), it will have a more formal feel to it than the NASB, NIV, HCSB, etc. I would also say that it has a more "literary" feel than a translation like the NASB rather than being "more formal" unless what is meant by formal is something like what I would term a literary feel or a more literary style.
But I have occasionally found what are essentially archaisms in the ESV that can sometimes make it harder to follow than the updated NASB, which at times actually uses more idiomatic English than the ESV or the NKJV even though overall it is considered to be more literal.
I also think some of the difficulty people have reported having with the NASB is due to the fact that it has typically been printed in a verse by verse format rather than a paragraph format, although it is now available in paragraph format as well.
The book of Philippians is a good translation in the NIV. Like Randy, I have also noticed that as well; though, on the whole, I am not a big NIV fan, it does have some gems.
What readers should keep in mind
No version is perfect. The translation we use, however, is I believe a red-herring! My Father is living: My Saviour is real - and as I read, I'm not examining the "jots and tittles" - I'm hearing from my Father.
I do not believe that our God the Lord of all creation would allow the Bible to become an abomination. We must trust in the Lord God that he guides the hearts and minds of those who translate his word. Let us trust in the Lord our God before we put any trust in men.
I am no purist when it comes to the NIV. It is just the one I choose to read first. I suggest you find one that you like best and stick with it but don't be so dedicated that you refuse to compare other translations to get the true meaning of Scripture which is the real reason to read your Bible.
