Friday, May 24, 2013

Beware!!! NIV Bible Is An Imposter (edited 6/15/2013)

I have many friends who use the NIV Bible and it worries me that they do. There is so much wrong with this translation and it’s clear to see if you look for it. I tried to tell my friends not to use this Bible but they just thought I was crazy. I was even so bold a couple of times to tell them to throw it away. I’m sure they thought I was being quite arrogant but when something strikes me in the heart I can’t help myself. Needless to say I’m sure they are all still using it. Since my efforts were void of fruits maybe someone else will convince them of the dangers surrounding this book and God willing through this message there will be those who will be convinced to stop using the NIV.

The owner of this blog did not create this video and does not claim any rights to it. It is being used for educational purposes only.

The following was added to article on 6/15/13

After making this post I had a friend point out to me that the two men who recorded the videos (one has been removed) above are NOT good teachers both have been arrested for one thing or another and are heretics. I did not know this when I posted them. The reason for posting these videos is because they explain that there were two Greek translations: one has many copies and the other was copied only a few times. The video that is still posted is not a gospel teaching but rather a history teaching on the Bible so I felt confident in leaving it posted. My friend also scolded me for being so harsh about the NIV when I said that it should be thrown away. The following is a few things I found while researching the NIV a little more that shows the differences in the two translations and why I reject the NIV on a personal level and advocate not using it.

I think it is fine to change the way the Bible is written by changing the structure of the words. For example just about every time “eth” is used like in the words maketh and killeth it usually means that there should be an “s” at the end of the word. However to change the whole arrangement of a passage in my opinion is dangerous. It is like the dispensationalist teachings: it is so similar to the true teachings of the Bible that it is hard to tell them apart but we know that one is the truth and the other is not. We must distinguish the two and throw the other one out once it is proved contrary in any way.

The men of the Reformation rejected the very books the NIV is translated from and embraced what is called “The Majority Text” these are the texts the King James was translated from. The Majority Text is also called Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text. The other texts from which the NIV is translated from is mainly from Roman descent i.e. the Catholic Church. There are many sources that say these texts are distorted. If the church father’s that rejected dispensationalism rejected these writings then shouldn’t we?

My friend also pointed out an article written by a man named Gary Shogren. In this writing Mr. Shogren is comparing the NIV to the newer NIV (2011); in this writing Shogren comments on 1 Cor. 7:36, “The NIV 2011 is fine, but trades one “possible” meaning for another (Gary Shogren).  I believe this is where the NIV falters even in the old translations. It uses different definitions of a word when it should be using different words with the same meaning: synonyms. It seems Shogren backs me up by agreeing that the NIV trades one definition for another. In some cases this may be fine but is it acceptable to “trade one meaning for another” in all cases?

When a word is used in a sentence that word may have several meanings but that does not mean every definition of that word will fit in a particular sentence. It has to fit into the context of what has been written. The word fornication means idol worship in many places of the Bible but we couldn’t use that definition in 1 Cr. 7:1-2 because of the context (see below); clearly worshipping idols would not be avoidable by getting married.

Example #1

1 Cr. 7:1-2 is a good example of the NIV people putting what they wanted to in place of the word “nevertheless” and it changes the whole context of the two verses. 

(KJV) 1 Cr. 7:1—Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [it is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

(KJV) 1 Cr. 7:2—Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

(NIV) 1 Cr. 7:2—But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relation with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

What the NIV is saying to me is that “since” (in view of the fact) people are sinning sexually a man needs to marry a woman and a woman needs to marry a man.  In my way of thinking the NIV is saying something totally different than the King James; one says to avoid sexual sinning get married and the other says because sexual sin is occurring get married.  Do you see a difference?

Example #2

(KJV) Rev. 6:16—And said to the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.

(KJV) Rev. 6:17—For the great day of HIS wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

(NIV) Rev. 6:16—They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb”!

(NIV) Rev. 6:17—For the great day of THEIR wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Is there any doubt that the wrath belongs to the Lamb and that the word “His” belongs there. HIS and THEIR are two totally different words: one is plural and the other is singular. Although they are both definitions for the Greek word autos does that mean either will fit? Itself, herself, and themselves, are all definitions of that word why couldn’t we just put her there instead of their?

Angelical bishop and leading New Testament scholar N. T. Wright (born in1948) says the NIV translation is certainly not a standalone work to understanding the teachings of Paul.  Wikipedia states “Bishop Wright has been praised by many scholars of varying views.” And to further his credibility I might add that he is critical of dispensationalist doctrine of the rapture (Wikipedia). The following is what he has to say about the NIV in his words:

“When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses.... Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul's letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said.... [I]f a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.”

Example #3

(KJV) Rev. 5:9-10—And they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

(NIV) Rev. 5:9-10—And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.

In the King James all people are included. In the NIV there is a separation of us and them.  In this case the NIV changes the dynamics of the verse. In the KJV the living creatures and the elders are singing a song in praise of Jesus for not only saving them from all nations and tribes but for saving others also: hast made US unto our God kings and priests and WE shall reign on the earth. In the NIV it says Jesus has made THEM kings and priests and THEY shall reign on the earth. It is my belief that at least twelve of the twenty four elders are the apostles. If that is the case then they would certainly be saying US and not THEM? This is another case of changing one definition for another when it doesn’t fit the context. In my opinion it is wrong to do that and I just feel safer with the KJV.

It is not that I reject all other Bibles because there are good translations I just don’t think the NIV is even close to the real thing and I reject it and all other translations like it. I personally will always stick with the KJV and urge other to do the same. The NIV changes too much in my opinion and therefore cancels it out as the true word of God. Considering the examples I’ve given wouldn’t you agree that God’s word either says: us and we or it says them and their?  I am no scholar but I know that it cannot be both.

Many Many Blessings To You!!!!


James said...

Gail,Coincidently Michael Hoggard has just done a video about this this week and i was shocked at the many flaws and misleading changes to scripture,found in the NIV,so i applaud your addressing of this issue.God bless,

Gail said...

Thank you, James. It is certainly a very important subject!

I can't say that I've ever heard of Mr. Hoggard before. Could you give me the link or the name of the video you mentioned?

God Bless!!

James said...

Gail,i have just realised the video i mentioned is not specifically about the niv though it is part of his teaching.In relation to Michael Hoggard and his videos they can be found at Michael love his videos and with the demise of Barry Smith is now my favourite preacher.I love how as a Pastor he is willing to cover conspiracy theory related stories.On sundays there is also a live feed from his chuch and two live broadcasts on a tuesday and thursdays.Highly recommended.God bless.

Gail said...

Thanks James I will certainly check him out.

God Bless!!!

Tommy said...

Yes the nearly inspired version is nearly inspired indeed but nearly is not good enough, it refers to our great King Jesus as Lucifer

I wont tough the thing and have concerns for those who do, many of the more modern translations have dodgy teaching and translation, hmmm who could be behind this and why do we need new translation afetr new translation?

colin said...

This is a very, very difficult topic, in many, many ways (for me, at least!) The Puritans and the representatives from the Church of England who were behind the creation of the KJV 1611, left notes to the effect that they knew their efforts were NOT perfect. This is not to say that the Almighty God hasn't blessed their efforts, most assuredly He has. The KJV 1611 is by far my preferred choice. Nothing cometh close! Having said this, I do use the 1881 interlinear revision. Can any translation be perfect? We must ever be careful not to use soundbites (just because they sound right) which attack God's Holy Word in any form or fashion? To put it another way; if you were to assemble a room full of Greek and Hebrew scholars (irrespective of whether they were born again believers) would they not just do the job in hand?
I have a little working knowledge of the original languages; mostly in regards eschatology,and am aware of our need to be humble. What saith the Word of God? "God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" 1 Peter 5.5.(James 4.6) Cited from Proverbs 3.34.
Without a doubt, there are far too many Bible versions, translations, paraphrases, (call them what you will) available today, and once we overcome the initial difficulty of the olde worlde English of the KJV 1611, we truly discover that it IS a veritable masterpiece that no (born again) Bible scholar has yet, or indeed can, or will debunk.
May God bless your studies.