Burn the NIV

Red-Curious · 2018-12-15T23:34:56+00:00

As a moderator note: all of the mods agree that the 2011 NIV (and any revisions thereafter) is a relatively awful translation that does the original language an incredible disservice and often lends itself to grossly inaccurate interpretations of the text. We also recognize that their insistence to force gender-neutral language in an otherwise highly gendered text is a weak concession to the feminine imperative and reinforces the ongoing anti-male sentiment plaguing many churches.

That said, the attitude with which you communicate the point is not well-taken. This community is designed to help men, not flame against feminism and women. Pointing out the flaws in an overly-feminized culture, and even expressing frustration and anger against the impact this has on the broader church culture is appropriate. But trash-talking and raging are not appropriate here. This is not a hate community. Consider this a warning.

QUITxURxCRYING · 2018-12-14T12:21:05+00:00

Little dramatic, but I personally am not a fan of the NIV either. Gender neutral statements really skew the scriptures IMO.

Deep_Strength · 2018-12-14T19:30:32+00:00

Here's a 32 page analysis of the changes 2011 changes of the NIV for those actually interested in what OP is talking about even though it's probably not going to end well for this post.

http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf

One of the big contested examples:

We expect that evangelical feminists who claim that women can be pastors and elders will eagerly adopt this 2011 NIV because it tilts the scales in favor of their view at several key verses. This is especially true because the new NIV changes the primary verse in the debate over women’s roles in the church.

1984 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

2011 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)

Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible’s main barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over women’s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.”

The NIV’s translation committee says that the translation “assume authority” is “a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open.” In other words, “assume authority” could be understood in two different ways: a negative way (meaning “wrongly assume authority on one’s own initiative”) or a positive way (meaning “begin to use authority in a rightful way”). But in saying this the NIV translators fail to understand the full force of what they have done: They have given legitimacy to a feminist interpretation that did not have legitimacy from any other modern English translation (except the discontinued TNIV).

See the above link for all of the noted changes. In particular, there is a lot of changes to avoid using male pronouns, father, brother, man, son and other things in the NT. Same with the OT.

Edit: since /u/Ridabewa asked

RPCJoeMak · 2018-12-14T12:07:09+00:00

The NIV had such a strong reputation back in the 80s and through the 90s. They got caught up in all the politically correct vortex and is now a tremendously damaged product, IMO. You can still find some old versions of the NIV around, but it's getting tougher to find them.

Joe Mak

PMC Member

rocknrollchuck · 2018-12-14T13:41:16+00:00

u/from_spain, this post is locked until you provide some evidence here. Just making a statement without any argument or supporting evidence whatsoever does not constitute a worthy post on this sub.

Edit - the post is unlocked now since you expanded the post.

lukesterboi1 · 2018-12-15T07:36:41+00:00

It flat out omits some verses too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

WarriorJesus1915 · 2018-12-14T13:08:16+00:00

There is some validity to this, but you really should have put some evidence up with this post because without it it really makes you seem like a troll.

The current version which I believe is the 2002 and 2005 revision of the NIV Bible has replaced most if not all of the words man with gender-neutral descriptions so you are correct in saying that it is trash so to speak.

The 1984 version though is still gold and uses the proper nouns. James Dobson even talked about this and said that he doesn't support the current revisions that are gender-neutral. http://www.bpnews.net/12684/james-dobson-joins-critics-of-genderneutral-niv-revision

Great title for a post though. That was sure eye catching.

SkimTheDross · 2018-12-14T11:20:43+00:00

Mods - delete this trolling.

RPCJoeMak · 2018-12-15T05:18:11+00:00

Rarely do I see a decent thread posted on here seeing that most are sexual in nature (the Red Pill is all about that so why it's integrated with Biblical Christianity makes no sense) but this discussion on Bible versions needs more attention and I am glad OP brought it up even tho I couldn't reason with him before.

Anyway, the NIV is a satanic Bible. The board of directors includes a lesbian heavily involved in the occult. It is published by Zondervan (secular) which OP already said and Zondervan is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the prince of darkness, who cares nothing about the Truth but rather corporate profits. These new bibles are subject to copyright laws so many words have been added and omitted strategically to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. A simple juxtaposition of the King James next to the NIV will clearly reveal that.

In defense of the King James, despite the archaic words such as thee, thou, ye, and others, it is the easiest to understand of all the other versions. This is because 95% of the words are one and two syllable Anglo-Saxon words. The newer versions contain Latinized words that are three and four syllable words with suffixes and prefixes. New versions also boast of their substitution of the word "you" for the archaic "ye" and "thee" but do not notice that the KJV uses the word "you" two thousand times. It only uses "ye" and "thee" when needed to distinguish between the Greek singular and plural: "ye" is plural, and "thee" is singular. By using those particular renderings, the KJV gives an exact representation of the Greek word (Riplinger 11).

The NIV has sixty-four thousand words omitted! Specifically in the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6. Verse 13 has been completely omitted, "thine is the kingdom." Certainly Satan doesn't want the kingdom to go to the Lord Jesus. This is heresy and the occult uses a shortened version like this to pray to Lucifer. Pretty disturbing to say the least but should not go undetected by an untrained eye that takes diligence in analyzing and scrutinizing texts.

The other very important matter to consider is which manuscripts do these new bibles translate from? Most, if not all, use the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus which was created when Constantine needed a religious document that would appease the pagans as a way of uniting both Christians and pagan Rome. These manuscripts disappeared from the 4th century until in 1881, two Liberal church men, Westcott and Hort, modified the historical Greek New Testament text to match the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They both had an ecumenical spirit which is the spirit of Anti-Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls (containing most books of the Old Testament except Esther, Nehemiah, and some minor prophets) recently discovered, were written mostly in Hebrew (a very small percentage written in Aramaic and Greek) by the Essenes, an esoteric group in rebellion against both the Old Testament sacrifice system and the New Testament Messiah (Riplinger 26). The most trusted version of the Bible is the authorized version of 1611 or the King James. It is translated from the Textus Receptus. Consider what Dr. Wilbur Pickering from Dallas Theological Seminary wrote in his thesis work,

"new versions differ from the originals in some six thousand places. They are several times further removed from the originals than the King James Version."

Source: "Which Bible is God's Word" Gail Riplinger, Ph.D. "New Age Bible Versions" Gail Riplinger, Ph.D. "Defending the King James Bible" Rev. D. A. Waite, Ph.D. and Th.D.

WarriorJesus1915 · 2018-12-14T12:21:55+00:00

I’d love to see examples!

bad--apple · 2018-12-15T03:37:05+00:00

The NIV removes the word "propitiation" and does not convey the idea of the removal of the wrath of God in its place. It further waters down the nature of God in similar ways.

It removes the idea that Jesus is the only begotten son (see John 3:16)

It doesn't follow biblical language well and when the NIV should convey "stumble" it says "fall away" which implies something different altogether. (Matthew 26:31). Romans 11:25 mistranslates "fullness" as "full number" which can make proper study of the passage difficult. There are tons of examples like this. Ephesians 5:9 Luke 4:44

Missing verses- compare Luke 9:56 Matthew 17:21 Matthew 23:14 Mark 7:16 Mark 9:44 Mark 9:46 Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28 Luke 17:36 John 5:3–4 Acts 8:37 Acts 15:34 Acts 24:6–8 Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24 1 John 5:7-8

Downplays or removes Jesus as creator like in Ephesians 3:9 (Colossians 1:16 John 1:1-3 Hebrews 11:3 talk about this as well, for reference)

Luke 2:33 calls Joseph "His father" instead of "Joseph" which could cause confusion.

The NIV downplays Christ's miracles John 5:4, Luke 8:42-45, John 11:41, Mark 1:31, Mark 3:14-15. Some of this might seem like nit-picking but I'd rather err on the side of glorifying Christ Jesus.

NIV removing the words of Jesus (going along with removing attributes of God): Matthew 5:44 Mark 11:26 Matthew 20:16 Mark 6:11 Mathew 23:14 Luke 4:4 Mark 7:16

Changing Christ's model for prayer: Luke 11:2, Matthew 6:13

Do I need to go on? There's a lot more.

Edit: I know this doesn't address OP's points, but the NIV is just an awful translation.

Burn the NIV

Comments

You are right on the money. Great stuff here. Untrained people will think it's conspiratorial in nature until they do some research and digging.

I sure hope this sub doesn't turn into another area where people censor every off beat post just because some unknowing person on here cries foul. If that happens then this whole environment will just become another me-too casualty.

I have been following the demise of the NIV version for years. What a sad story. The 1984 NIV is still my favorite.

Joe Mak

PMC Member

Title	Burn the NIV
Author	from_spain
Upvotes	6
Comments	27
Date	December 14, 2018 10:31 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/a63pbc/burn_the_niv/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/burn-the-niv.301563 https://theredarchive.com/post/301563