Whats wrong with the NIV?
- Thread starter matthew11v25
- Start date
- Status
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Dr. Mohler made the statement in an address to Southern Baptist Pastors, June 10, 2002.
John Dart, writing for the mainstream Christian Century in July of 2002, was none to pleased by evangelical reaction to the TNIV. In the midst of his article, he cites Mohler. Dart, a very liberal journalist, is nevertheless known from his days as religion writer at the L.A. Times as an accurate reporter, particularly with attributions and quotes:
Bill Craig references it with first hand testimony, speaking about the HCSB he adds . . .
Last edited:
jambo
Puritan Board Senior
I find the NIV is maybe the best of the dynamic equivalent translations however for accuracy the NASB/ESV/NKJ is better.
I used to use the NIV until around 20 years ago and abandoned it for the following reasons.
1. The translators have removed the name The Lord of Hosts claiming this is not understood today. The main text translates it as the LORD Almighty. The particular name or title of God used in a passage is significant to that passage and felt the NIV was wrong in doing this.
2. On the propitiation/expiation debate of Ro 3.25; Heb 2.117; 1 Jn 2.2: 4.10 the NIV dodged the issue by simply saying atonement. This might not be a great issue to some but I feel it is an issue in assessing translations.
3. I didn't like the way it interprets itself. For instance The Great Sea becomes the Mediterranean. Now although they are both one and the same thing, its an example of the NIV interpretating itself.
4. The final blow came after a discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep. I had been accusing them of adding their bias to the NWT by adding the name Jehovah in places like Rev 1.8. Later in the conversion I used my NIV in showing them Isaiah saw Jesus' glory (Jn 11.41) and condemned the JWs for adding Jehovah yet omitting Jesus as in the Jn 11 passage. After they left my wife asked me if I was sure. "Of course I was sure, the Jw's have ommitted Jesus from the text" She gently encouraged me to check. "No need," I said "If its in the NIV it must be right." (I was a bit naive then) She did persuade me to check and on looking at my Greek NT I was horrified to discover the name Jesus does not appear there, but the NIV has interpreted it and added it in. That was the end of the NIV for me. The very thing which I condemned the NWT of doing, the NIV has done.
Over the last few years I have started to read the NIV again but for any study, the NASB or ESV is the main bible.
I used to use the NIV until around 20 years ago and abandoned it for the following reasons.
1. The translators have removed the name The Lord of Hosts claiming this is not understood today. The main text translates it as the LORD Almighty. The particular name or title of God used in a passage is significant to that passage and felt the NIV was wrong in doing this.
2. On the propitiation/expiation debate of Ro 3.25; Heb 2.117; 1 Jn 2.2: 4.10 the NIV dodged the issue by simply saying atonement. This might not be a great issue to some but I feel it is an issue in assessing translations.
3. I didn't like the way it interprets itself. For instance The Great Sea becomes the Mediterranean. Now although they are both one and the same thing, its an example of the NIV interpretating itself.
4. The final blow came after a discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep. I had been accusing them of adding their bias to the NWT by adding the name Jehovah in places like Rev 1.8. Later in the conversion I used my NIV in showing them Isaiah saw Jesus' glory (Jn 11.41) and condemned the JWs for adding Jehovah yet omitting Jesus as in the Jn 11 passage. After they left my wife asked me if I was sure. "Of course I was sure, the Jw's have ommitted Jesus from the text" She gently encouraged me to check. "No need," I said "If its in the NIV it must be right." (I was a bit naive then) She did persuade me to check and on looking at my Greek NT I was horrified to discover the name Jesus does not appear there, but the NIV has interpreted it and added it in. That was the end of the NIV for me. The very thing which I condemned the NWT of doing, the NIV has done.
Over the last few years I have started to read the NIV again but for any study, the NASB or ESV is the main bible.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I linked the original Baptist Press Article in post 30 above.
Most controversial to the liberals and others who perhaps didn't understand the context of the remarks was Mohler's statement in that article that Southern Baptists now have a translation that "we can control."
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks. My computer will not permit me to go to the BP site for some reason??? It keeps going to "Internet Exploer cannot display the webpage." So, I was unable to know if that was the comment I was looking for in the bunch. And, yes, you are absolutely correct. That "we can control" comment keeps turning up whenever libs discuss the HCSB (or Mohler for that matter).
Ivan
Pastor
Thanks, Dennis. I recently purchased a HSBC and will receive it in a few days. I'll see what all the fuss is about.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
I was always suspicious about the NIV after I read I Cor. 7: "It is good for a man not to marry a woman", so says the NIV. But, scripture says "it is good for a man to not touch a woman." There's quite a difference!
matthew11v25
Puritan Board Sophomore
Whenever I listen to this guy he annoys me. Like how he starts off the video saying "you havent liked anything I have said so far"... but he is funny in a way!
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think the decision by the publishers of the ESV to be very internet friendly and their development of a site that is far superior to any other version's site has also probably played a huge role in its popularity, particularly among younger people.
- Status
