Best Bible?

November 12, 2006 6:49 AM

What's wrong with the NIV bible? What's so great about it?

In various places, I've been reading about the bible (like in this great Bible thread), and when the subject of a particular translation comes up, the NIV usually gets trashed. I understand some of the reasons people are adamant about the King James version (both for and against). But what's up with the NIV?

I know it's the most commonly used in America, and it's almost exclusively used in evangelical churches (except for the small KJV-only movement). But what's so bad about it? I've read vague intimations that the translators seem to go out of their way to avoid 'difficult' interpretations. Or is it just that by being the most popular it gets the most complaints? Is it widely used because it's easy to read and doesn't lead to lots of uncomfortable exegesis? What specifically is wrong?

posted by bluejayk to religion & philosophy (15 comments total)

The NIV is written in modern english so is easier to read than the KJV. Many people, including me, find the writing in the NIV somewhat simplistic and lacking the beauty of the writing in the KJV. A lot of effort was put into making the NIV a more accurate translation, but these things are still seen through the lens of the translator, incorporating their biases and preconceived notions about the work.
posted by caddis at 7:24 AM on November 12, 2006

The NIV is translated by a huge number of translators from many denominations in an attempt to get the most accurate translation into contemporary English. I haven't heard all that much controversy about it, aside from people who are just more comfortable with the KJV.

The significant differences that I am familiar with between the NIV and KJV are a result of changes in the English language. That is, what a sentence in the KJV meant in 17th century English means something different in contemporary English. The KJV was a remarkably accurate translation of the Bible into 17th century English and the NIV is a very accurate translation of the Bible into 20th century English.
posted by winston at 7:45 AM on November 12, 2006

Older translations have the benefit of having thees and thous that sound better to people who like their Bible to sound different from their newspaper.

While I agree with this sentiment, the King James version is not a particularly ACCURATE translation, as one might guess. Not only has the field of translation grown a great deal more sophisticated in the 20th Century, but the KJV, logically enough, tends to reflect the worldview and biases of King James. You know, the witch-burning guy.

I had a prof bitch me out for using an NIV translation in one of my papers just because the wording wasn't pretty enough. I ended up changing it to the New American Bible - Catholic Edition that was one of the only others I had around, since I don't do King James, him having burnt at the stake the first person to write a book in English about my father's profession. (Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, which is in fact a book of slight of hand magic tricks)
posted by dagnyscott at 8:26 AM on November 12, 2006

I haven't heard much controversy about the NIV, really. It is, however, not a "pretty" translation, and that seems to annoy people. It's accurate, though, and quite clear. It was one of the first in the new wave of independent Bible translations, and a lot of stories changed. Many of the older versions (NRSV, Good News, NKJV, etc) simply went back to prior translations and updated them, rather than going back to 'original' (fsvo) sources. My church uses the New Revised Standard Version for lessons and studies, and I much prefer the NIV. I wouldn't be surprised if the reasoning (such as it is) behind the controversy is something like 'those annoying evangelical churches use it; it can't be any good'. I read KJV for pretty, NRSV when I'm doing something for church, and NIV for study.
posted by jlkr at 9:05 AM on November 12, 2006

Here's a KJV-onlyist take on what's wrong with the NIV. I've read lots of KJV-onlyist material, and while I don't know the specifics of what's wrong (or not) with the NIV, the major argument used against most newer Bible versions is that they come from the Alexandrian manuscripts, which while older than the Antioch manuscripts, are supposedly corrupted by their Egyptian association. The Bible the KJV was translated from, and some of the newer Bibles like the NKJV and the Voice in the Wilderness version were translated from Antioch manuscripts, or by comparing other Antiochian manuscripts in the case of the VW edition. But then the NKJV has that supposedly-occultic Triqueta on its cover.

If you want to spend weeks and weeks reading arguments, search google on the terms KJV-Onlyism and What's wrong with Bible version. I admit the KJV-onlyists make a scary case against reading the "wrong" versions, but so many of their other arguments are faulty, I can't help but beleive many of their KJV-only arguments are as well. (Their holding to Hell being a place of eternal torment for the unrepentant, for example, when that's not what the word meant in 1611. You can do much more reading on the original meaning of Hell and its related words if you try.) This is a subject that has given me literally hundreds of hours of reading.
posted by Katravax at 9:20 AM on November 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

(Wiki on King James only)
posted by milkrate at 11:13 AM on November 12, 2006

I used to be KJV only until I slapped myself awake realizing that no bible translation can be superiorly accurate unless the actual meaning that the writer intended to express is known, and the purpose of having multiple translations (of multiple languages) was the object at attempting to arrive at that very purpose. One translation can't do that - it's like hearing only one witness at a trial in modern America by a person who only speaks Olde English and refusing to hear a dozen other people who were there and have similar (but more clear) explanations in standard American-speak. An abundance of translations does not mean an abundance of confused or muddled perspectives -- they all try to arrive at the same point.

For instance, there is loads of information in the phrase, "J'habite du Texas" other than it's literal translation of "I live in Texas." Texas was formerly its own country, and all of the other US states require "en" or "à" instead of "du" because "du" is reserved for reference to countries only, but is kept in proper French because of its former status. But, you wouldn't know this if you had only read a literal translation. A meaning-translation bible also explains various then-known tidbits of information about what a passage possibly refers to by making the passage more clear than simply going word for word.

The NIV is often criticized as being flawed because it leaves out a handful of liner notes that manuscripts contain in the margins of the "original" -- which the KJV includes. It seems as if some verses are missing in this case, but those missing verses aren't actually verses but are those liner notes that whoever copied the manuscript the KJV was made from, wrote into the margins perhaps as types of clarifications, while the NIV includes only the actual scripture text. It is nearly impossible to tell whether the writer who copied the KJV-translated manuscript(s) wrote them in there himself as a self-notation, or if they were part of the copy he was making, or what. They don't leave much at all out anyway, the entire meaning is unchanged.
posted by vanoakenfold at 11:46 AM on November 12, 2006

This thread (Which version of the bible should I read and why are there so many versions?) may also be interesting to you.
posted by davar at 12:02 PM on November 12, 2006

I use the NRSV in preaching because of the inclusive language:

‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? (NRSV)

Compared to:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." (NIV)

To me, the first one is better. I mean, Jesus was talking to us all, wasn't he?
posted by 4ster at 12:36 PM on November 12, 2006

The NIV was translated by a group of people with a belief in Biblical inerrancy, which creates some of the differences in translation - since from their point of view, it is more correct to translate so that everything is consistent, rather than using the most obvious translation for a particular verse.

For example, take Gen 2:19:

KJV: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

ESV: So out of the ground the Lord God formed [1] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

(ESV has a footnote: Or had formed.)

In Genesis 2:19 the NIV rendered the first verb as an English pluperfect: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man." The pluperfect "had formed" was used here so as to explicitly harmonize the verse with the account of creation given in chapter 1, in which the animals are created prior to the creation of man. This harmonistic rendering was intended to counter the liberal assertion that the story beginning at 2:4 is from a source which does not agree with the account in the first chapter.

Whether or not this is a problem depends on your view of Biblical inerrancy, of course. Personally I think it's best to read from multiple translations.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:05 PM on November 12, 2006

The NIV is a thought-to-thought translation. The version I like-New American Standard-is word-for-word. Each type has advantages and disadvantages. If you are looking up words in concordances for an indepth study you probably need the latter-but nothing particularly wrong with the former.
posted by konolia at 2:19 PM on November 12, 2006

I just found the online New American Bible on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Note its rendition of the manna story from Exodus:

13 In the evening quail came up and covered the camp. In the morning a dew lay all about the camp,

14 and when the dew evaporated, there on the surface of the desert were fine flakes like hoarfrost on the ground.

15 On seeing it, the Israelites asked one another, "What is this?" for they did not know what it was. But Moses told them, "This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.

So manna was basically dried bird shit mixed with water. Which the Israelites had to eat for 40 years while wandering in the desert.
posted by davy at 8:06 PM on November 12, 2006

I'd suggest the KJV and Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible. And a study group that knows how to read and research.
posted by w_boodle at 4:49 AM on November 13, 2006

(Their holding to Hell being a place of eternal torment for the unrepentant, for example, when that's not what the word meant in 1611. You can do much more reading on the original meaning of Hell and its related words if you try.)

A pedantic point: while I don't doubt that the writers of the Bible didn't think of hell the same way we do now, Christendom by the time of the KJV sure (as hell!) did think of hell as a place of torment. I mean, Dante wrote the Divine Comedy some four hundred years prior.
posted by norm at 6:46 AM on November 13, 2006

A word of caution, if I may. There are multiple printings of the NIV. The most recent printing has failed to properly translate gender in many cases in an effort to make the text more politically correct. Printings from the 80's and 90's more closely match the source documents.

I like the NIV generally. It's a good tool which aids in understanding. Then again, I prefer NASB. The two work exceptionally well together.

Usually, dispersions are cast about it being a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word. This isn't completely true. It is made more readable than NASB, which is the closest to word-for-word of the common translations. (Understanding, of course, that since it is a *translation*, there cannot be perfect word for word copying and that word order must be switched in order to comply with English language rules.) It is also a common and old technique to translate to a more readable form.

To support this, you may like to get your hands on a NIV and read the translators introduction at the beginning. You may also wish to query terms such as "textus receptus", "textus sinaiticus" and "textus vaticanus". These are some proper names of the most common codexes.

And with that we should define our terms:
Manuscript=the original penning of the document by the author. These are lost to antiquity.
Codex=collection of copies of manuscripts. There are several, each with it's own history.
Translation=Bible in one's own language having one or more codexes as it's source.

It's worth mentioning that some of the earliest translations from codexes were so-called thought-for-thought, such as the septuagent. After all, a translation is intended to make the document readable by someone who does not read the original language. Even interlinear Bibles require some deviation from the codex since not all words translate perfectly from one language to another.
posted by kc0dxh at 7:28 AM on November 13, 2006