Do you believe that reading other translations of the bible like NIV is wrong?

Question

The last passage of the bible says tha no one should take away or add to this book.

Answer 1

I dont think its wrong... I think essentially literal transations like
ESV and NKJV are more precise

more free loose works like The Message and possibly The Living Bible dont really always preserve lists and so reading them is ok.... I woulnd not use them as a study BIble... they might be helpful as a new look... realive its not a precise translation and check it agains t others

NIV is phrase for phraze and the viewpoint of the trranslator is sometimes taken, so I prefer ESV NKJV and the old NASB
over NIV

I would not have chosen the word wrong

Answer 2

As long as the Translation into English is an accurate one. While translating from the original tongues (languages) the Old and New Testaments into English is not perfect - the scholars MUST be well versed in the perspective languages - and there has to be a watch-dog system to insure no Sectarian (Denominational) influences/interpretations are carried over into the process.

The NIV accomplishes that task as does the NASB, the NKJV and some others.

HOWEVER - There are dangerous LOOSE so called translations that take too many liberties in playing around with the words - adhering to doctrinal ideologies like "The Message Bible" which imbibes in slang, and of slang using sectarian bias -corrupting the originality with an ALMOST deliberate zest.

Some say the NIV removes scripture. Such people fail to read the introduction section at the beginning of the NIV Bible which explains certain missing verses and the NIV makes it clear what passages have possibly been corrupted seeing that such passages and or verses for whatever reason DID NOT APPEAR IN THE EARLIER WITNESSING TEXTS! These suspect scriptures that they removed (actually placed in a foot note on corresponding pages) showed up in texts AFTER the 13th and 14th Centuries!!!! Logic suggests if these passages do not show up until 13 centuries later - something is wrong somewhere - SO - they used the Utmost Respect in translating and assembling the NIV.

Answer 3

The Bible is an anthology of books written by many different authors living in different time periods and different places. Many passages were originally stories transmitted orally and later written down by persons other than the original authors. Still more passages were borrowed or adapted from earlier sources without citation.

In short, even the "original" Hebrew and Greek texts were translations.

It's likely that the author of Revelation meant his prohibition against adding and taking away to apply just to that book, not the entire Bible, which had not yet been assembled.

Answer 4

Nope, I don't believe it is wrong at all. Some people cannot understand the language of KJV and I do believe that the Holy Spirit does lead you to understand but are we requiring that all people learn English to read the Bible? I don't think so. I can't pick up a Russian Bible and understand it and I believe that God has given us various translations so that no one has an excuse for not being able to understand it. KJV was just the language of the day.

If you want the most literal stick to Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

I have grown up learning verses in the KJV or NKJV but for teaching my youth group I use a variety of translations to get the point across.

Answer 5

The passage refers to intentionally twisting scripture in order to confuse or deceive believers.

If we aren't allowed to read newer translations, then technically, we all need to learn Hebrew and Greek to read the OT and NT as they were written. Some members of my family are hung up on the KJV only band wagon (and I love to point out to them that it is imperfectly translated from Hebrew and Greek). I enjoy KJV and read it quite often but I also have one of the first NIV translations as my main Bible. If there is a problem between the two, I will consult a concordance or visit www.blueletterbible.org to see the different translations.

Answer 6

I only use the KJV and that is a personal bias of mine because it is the translation and not interpretation. Bible's like the NIV when compared to the KJV have striking different texts and meanings, for example look in both at the text Revelation 22:14. That is just one out of many. So I would rather share a KJV than a NIV.

Answer 7

I have a small book on what the NIV does. People think that the NIV takes the thee's and thou's out but they are wrong. It takes more than that. It takes whole verses out. It takes the words, blood, Christ, Son of God, and hell. The KJV is written on a 3rd grade level I have heard. It takes the Holy Spirit to help us understand the bible. Not that their is hidden meanings , but you cannot understand Spiritual things without the Holy Spirit showing you. So yes I think reading the NIV is wrong.

Answer 8

No, It not wrong as long as you understand what you are reading, and that it is another translation. The only Bible we need is the Old King James Version. I know there are many that disagree, but they have their right to their opinions as do I. Today's versions take out. People say they they can't understand The King James Bible, If you ask the Holy Spirit for understanding, He will give it. The problem is people don't want to understand.

Answer 9

Translations by definition should not take away or add anything to the original text. The NIV is a credible translation. Beware of those who get weird about the different translations...they have an agenda.

Answer 10

NO I don't think so. I myself have had three different bibles, but they all teach the same message and that is that there is only One God, and there was only One Messiah (who was Jesus), and to love the lord with all your heart and soul, and to not worship false Gods.(which Aren't real). Regarding the last passage in the bible, god will add to your suffering if you add something to the bible, and taking from the bible, God again will take away your share of the tree of life.