1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

what do you think about the NIV and the ESV bible?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by william641989039, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. hi,brothers and sisters,
    what do you think about the NIV bible and the ESV bible?
    my bible is NIV and also I have ESV.
    Thx
    may God bless you all.
     
  2. I prefer the ESV if I'm going to only choose one Bible, but I also use many versions and go back and study from commentary as well as the original Greek when I can.

    However, I firmly believe that the best version of the Bible is whichever one you will read. No version is any good if you don't read it.
     
  3. ESV would be my choice as well over the NIV.

    Personally I tend to stay with the KJV/NKJV but that is just me.
     
  4. ESV because of its old English. Sometimes I get confused as to what it says, but that's what a dictionary is for and it's actually fun that way. :)
     
  5. The spanish counterpart of the KJV is RVR. Both where preapared at the same time (centuty) and using the same apparatus. Appasratus - i am explaining to new brothers - is the text concidered as original and used to be translated. The KJV and the RVR used an Apparatus know with the name of Textus Receptus. The concept was that if the allmighty God did preserv the text that we have at hand, it has to be the World of God. And the Textus Receptus is basically the Vulgata. Today we know that the TR is a very bad apparatus and we use the Massoretic Text (the Hebrew OT used but all Jew) and the Critical Text (a greek text recomposed out of all greek manuscrips we have, plus a depp, continuous and dinamic disscussion in order to recinstruc the relly original text).

    In few words; if we want a more acurate text, the most close to the very original text; then the KJV and RVR are not what we are looking for. But KJV and RVR had a grat advantege over all modern versions; it is not contaminated with private interests, and have not beenn corrupted to fit some particular doctrine. One example:

    I was discissing tithe in ione forum. Somebody quoted Jesus: "you shal do that without quiting doin the other" (sorry for may english). I was sayingb that "not quiting doing the other" is not meaning "not to quite tithing". Who was righ or wrong if me or him ius irrelevat. What is matters that the brother posted a different english version saying "you shal do that without quiting on tithing" How come? The greek word for tithe is not present in any manuscrip at all. No one of all the documents we have is using the greek word for tithe. Not even the Vulgata is using the lating word for tithe. Obviously, that version is reapared in order to support an specific doctrine. How can I lear doctrine with that version? How I know if all others doctrine are not supported (in that version) by twosting the original Bible?

    Those are the points to concider wich version is better. RVR have been corrected several times in orther to follow todays spanish; not the same with KJV. But KJV as well as RVR offers a pure and not-contaminated version.
     
  6. I like the NIV. I think it is basically a good translation, and it is very readable. I have not used the ESV. I don't like the KJV - I was not brought up in church, so it was never part of my "culture" as it has been with many; and even after 36 years as a Christian I find the language difficult to follow. There are also quite a few instances where the English words used in the KJV meant something quite different in 1611 to what they do today. I have known "KJV only" people who have argued that men died to bring us the KJV, therefore we should still read it. My contention is that those men died to bring the people the Bible in a language that they could understand. I believe if they were alive today they would be the strongest voices urging the acceptance of modern versions.

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  7. I have no desire to argue with anyone. My only intent here is to inform, not judge. IMO we all should understand that the NIV has COMPLETLY REMOVED some verses from the KJV.

    If that does not bother anyone one then so be it.

    Here is only a few of over 50 examples in the New Testament:

    Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed . What was removed?
    "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
    Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed . What was removed?
    "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
    Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed. What was removed?
    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
    Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed. What was removed?
    "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
     
    Lifeasweknowit likes this.
  8. I can't speak for all of them, but many verses that were removed simply didn't exist in the oldest texts which were not available when the KJV was written. That is not to support the NIV, but it wasn't an issue of trying to change the Bible, but removing things that were added. The change reflects a historically more accurate source material, not a corruption of the translation.
     


  9. Luke 2:33 (NIV) And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.
    1 John 5:7 (NIV) For there are three that testify:
    Now compare these two verses to a King James Bible and here is what I saw:
    (Luke 2:33 KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
    (1 John 5:7 KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    Differance??/ In the NIV, Luke 2:33 refers to Joseph as the father of Christ which would deny the Virgin birth.

    My King James Bible that is dated 1855 and the one I presently use which is dated 2005 . Consider
    Colossians 1:14:
    1855 Published Date -"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

    2005 Published Date -
    "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

    Do you see any difference? None at all but between these dates of 1855 to 2005, the modern versions have changed 233 times. Then we wonder why Christians are confused and cannot hold to stable doctrine. Just my opinion.
     
  10. I don't see Luke 2:33 in the NIV referring to Joseph as Jesus' father being a major issue. As far as everyone looking on was concerned, and as far as his role in bringing up the Child went, Joseph was His father. The NIV has already made it clear in Luke 1:26-38 (the Annunciation) and also in Matthew 2:18-24 (Joseph's encounter with the angel) that this Child was conceived of the Holy Spirit; and Luke 3:23 clearly states that "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." If there had been any intention on the part of the translators to deny the virgin birth, surely those passages would have been changed or removed.

    As for 1 John 5:7, much as I would like the extra words to actually be part of Scripture, my understanding is that they simply were not there in the oldest manuscripts. Somehow I recall the Word saying somewhere that it is as wrong to add to the Scripture as to take away from it.

    Before we go accusing the NIV translators of having an agenda against the Word, perhaps it would be good to read the Preface. Here is a quote from it:

    Maybe I'm naive, but to me that sure doesn't sound like a bunch of people with no respect for the Word, or with a desire to undermine its truths.

    Some years ago I found what I considered to be an excellent little book on the whole subject. I don't know whether it is still in print, but it is titled The King James Version Debate - A Plea for Realism, by D. A. Carson, published by Baker Books. If you can get hold of it, it is well worth the read.

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  11. My interlinear NIV/Greek has pater (father) referring to Joseph, so it is not a matter of editorializing, at least. You would have to take issue with the manuscripts they were using in this case rather than their translation.
     
  12. The following will reveal the difference as to which Bible is nearest the "original" that would lead us to the clear identity of the maker or TESTAOR of the "Testament of Salvation." This is the requirement for the fulfillment of the "Testament of Salvation" as revealed to Paul, for the shedding of blood of the Testator:

    Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

    NIV (New International Version)

    1 Timoth 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit....

    ESV (English Standard Version)

    1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit...

    KJV (King James Version or Authorized Version of 1611)

    1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit...

    (In the NIV and ESV, the "testator" or the "entity" that needed to die (fulfillment of the testament) is vaguely written. In the KJV of 1611, it is definitely written to be God.)

    Apostle John confirmed what Paul wrote as regards the "death of the TESTATOR."

    ESV (English Standard Version)

    1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us...

    ESV (English Standard Version)

    1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us...

    KJV (King James Version or Authorized Version of 1611)

    John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us...

    It appears as far as the "entity" making the "Testament of Salvation" is concerned, the KJV of 1611 specifies clearer that it was GOD, or the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," to whom this testament or covenant of salvation orginated. It is written in Old Testament books that it was the FATHER who made the "Testament of Salvation."

    As to HOW the maker or Testator of the "Testament of Salvtion" fulfilled it, that is clearly pointed out that "God manifested Himself in the flesh" in the person of JESUS CHRIST. From this, we are guided to make the right conclusion on the matter
     
    Lifeasweknowit likes this.
  13. According to my Greek Interlinear Bible, the word "God" does not occur in the original Greek of either verse.

    The problem with "King Jim Only" people is that they begin with the assumption that the KJV is a totally accurate translation, and therefore any translation that differs from the KJV must by definition be inaccurate. However, as in this case, often the truth is that the KJV is inaccurate, and later versions (with access to older and more accurate manuscripts) have not changed Scripture, but rather have corrected the translation.

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  14. Does not simply tracing the "intended meaning or message of God" from the "original language" like Hebrew and Greek fall under the following prohibition as regards the "letter" of the word?

    2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    And the foregoing bodes well with the following:

    2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

    And so, as regards the identity of GOD/JESUS CHRIST, it is a choice between KJV and NIV or ESV.

    Let us remember, we are trying identify the,

    GOD of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, what is His NAME?
    GOD of Peter, Paul, James, what is His NAME?
    GOD of the "elect" who will meet them in heaven, and to be with in eternity!

    (Something to think about.)
     
  15. How would trying to understand what God intends to convey to us through study of the original languages fall under a prohibition that reading the English translations of those original languages does not? Is it not better to discern God's intended meaning from the languages and manuscripts closest to the original possible?
     
  16. I'm sorry, but this sounds like you are saying it is ok to translate the original languages in which the Bible was written any way you like, as long as it supports your belief (and as long as it is the KJV that does the translating!)

    There is nothing in the NIV translation of these passages that detracts from the identity of God or of Jesus Christ in any way. If God, who inspired the writing of these passages in the original languages did not choose to include the word "God" at these points, then that should be enough for us. To insert something that is not in the original is not translation, but interpretation.

    Let me be clear: if someone likes the KJV, if that is the version through which you are best able to understand the Word of God, then by all means use the KJV. Just don't insist that I use it, because I find it impossible to understand; and don't tell me that I am less of a Christian because I don't like the KJV. AND don't tell me that the KJV is the most accurate translation - because, very simply it is not.

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  17. NIV is a thought for thought translation. As such, there is by definition some amount of bias in doctrine. However, we must realize that it is 1) very small and 2) only in areas of doctrine, not in vital areas. In other words, it's a good "reading" Bible. I don't like to use it as a "study" Bible, but even then for the most part it is still relatively acceptable. It has changed a number of times over the years. Some of those changes have been very controversial, and I certainly question the wisdom of those changes which is why I generally avoid the NIV for any real study purposes.

    The ESV is a more accurate word for word style translation, but like EVERY translation it is not perfect. Sorry KJV-only people. That's one is not perfect either. That's the nature of translation. The KJV does have it's share of minor issues. There are some verses that have been "added" or altered from the "original" text. It doesn't help that we don't have any samples of the "original text". The oldest copies we have are still not really THAT old. They are several generations after the "original". The KJV was translated off of much newer text than the NIV or the ESV or in fact any other translation. The fact that it hasn't changed isn't a reflection of it's accuracy but of the fact that you can't chance it and call it the KJV anymore. They've tried. There are several versions of these attempts, using the older manuscripts to rebuild the KJV in a more accurate form. But the only thing that really makes the KJV stand out is the "poetic" language that was used, a language which I will point out was not in common use even when the KJV was first translated. They chose that way of writing to make the text seem more ancient.

    The only Bibles that I really can't recommend are those that have been written with agendas such as Holman's, The Conservative Bible, or the New World Translation. I also usually try to avoid complete paraphrase Bibles like The Message or NCV, or overly complicated versions like the Amplified Bible that actually causes more confusion and creates more debates than it solves when people take it a bit too far.

    But here is the real trick. Do we believe that our salvation is tied to a particular version of the Bible? If we accept that, then the only thing that can really be said is that whatever version you are studying is definitely the wrong one, because there is nothing in the Scripture that ties our salvation to the KJV or the ESV or any other version, nor is there any version (excepting possibly the NWT or similar) that can preclude Salvation in any way. Read the one that makes sense to you.
     
    Lifeasweknowit likes this.
  18. I suppose the core or bottom line in reading the Holy Bible is to find so as to attain spiritual salvation, in order to be with God in His Eternal Kingdom.

    Therefore, the first thing that we need to "discover" or more specifically is to identify the One True God in the Holy Bible. Hence, we need to know:

    Who is He?
    Who is Jesus Christ?
    Who is the Holy Spirit?
    Who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses? His name?
    Who is the God of Peter and Paul? His name?
    Who is this ONE TRUE GOD that the chosen (elect) would meet them, and to be with in eternity? His name?
     
  19. To all sincere searchers of finding/knowing the ONE TRUE GOD, have you tried reading the following article?

    Every professing Christian believe, I suppose, the CROSS is the symbol for SALVATION for on it the SAVIOR "shed His blood." Please click:

    http://www.purechristianity.org/index.php/news/Cross_the_Eternal_Symbol_for_Truth
     
  20. Great thread! I've been a Christian my entire life but after over 30 years i've just begun reading my Bible every day, i've just begun my mission of being a real Christian. The Bible I have is the NIV. I see that some verses have been left out and just from viewing this post some of the translations (compared to KJV) have a decent difference. So what I want to know is.......What Bible do you guys feel is closest to God's word? What Bible can I go to a bookstore or even online and buy possibly has closest to the real manuscripts? Should I say what Bible in English. I've heard some say the Original Hebrew Bible. I hope I'm being clear, I want to read the Bible closest to what God wanted for us, not the Bible that's been translated several times, have things left out, etc....I understand it may be more difficult for me to read but I'd rather have the real thing. Feel free to tell me if i'm wrong, or it would be super hard to understand. God Bless, thank you!
     

Share This Page