The NIV bible is a corrupt translation of the King James. It changes the whole meaning of the word. BTW a lesbian was on the team that helped change the bible. The NIV is a bible meant for all religions. They want a one religion world that does not follow the true teachings.
KEY WORD HERE: CHANGE
The bible shall not be changed or altered with. It is not meant to be read but instead studied. If you cannot understand it, then you are not studying it.
2007-02-15 11:31:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Thumbs down to the NIV - its a terrible study Bible; I do work in the orig manuscripts, and learned the languages to do it.
I also have the help of some study tools if I need them, like a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance; I use the King James - because it works with the Concordance, and also a Companion Bible, which is even better yet.
Yeah, you couldn't be more correct.
2007-02-15 19:30:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Peace!
Maybe you should try the more formal equivalence translations like the American Standard Version or the Revised Standard Version. They are not a good read, however, because the translators try to match the original text word for word. I use the New American Bible which is also an equivalence translation but a better read.
For pastoral work and meditation I use the Good News Bible which is a dynamic equivalence translation.
Have a blessed day!
2007-02-15 20:01:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Get the Authorized King James Bible 1611 before getting the NIV. SO I am putting two thumbs down for the NIV. Plus ,The NIV is printed by the same company that does the Satanic Bible.
2007-02-15 19:41:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Healthy For Him 2
·
5⤊
0⤋
The NIV should be called the Not Inspired Version.
If you look at the reading level it is only on a third grade level.
The NIV leaves out very important verses and changes a lot of the meanings of the words.
I will stick with the King James Version!
2007-02-15 19:33:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by zoril 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
The NIV is a more accurate translation of the ancient myths than most. It attempts to divorce itself from the politics that guided the KJV.
The fundies who love the KJV and attack the Catholics amuse me. The KJV was an attempt to make a more Catholic English bible because the popular English translation of the time, the Geneva bible, was considered too Protestant by the noted King, Anglo-Catholic, and homosexual James.
2007-02-15 19:43:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dave P 7
·
0⤊
4⤋
From a Biblical languages scholarship point of view, it is good, better than most. It is so much better than the king james PERversion, with its several hundred deliberate mistranslations, that it defies description.
NIV is not the best, but it is among the best.
... MANY seem to be MISLED, the NIV just "left out" the verses which were FALSELY ADDED in the kjv... VERSES WHICH NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY LACK ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE!
2007-02-15 19:31:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
I WOULD SAY TO ALWAYS HAVE A KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE ALONG WITH ANY OTHER BIBLE AND THEN JUST COMPARE THE SCRIPTURE IT GIVES A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING I PERSONALLY LOVE THE SPIRIT FILLED BIBLE THE BEST BUT I HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES INCLUDING THE NIV AND IF IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND I ALWAYS GO BACK THE KJV
2007-02-15 19:34:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by B-E-B 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Thumbs up, the Word of God is interpreted buy the heart and spirit of a man and revealed through the Holy Spirit.
The NIV is a good translation for people who communicate in such a manner, especially English speaking children and beginners in the journey of the Word.
2007-02-15 19:31:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Holy Holly 5
·
0⤊
4⤋
The NIV is a great translation that MANY churches, scholars, and teachers use. It is quite common. It does have some wording issues here and there but so do ALL Bibles. As long as we read translations, we are going to have that problem. I really enjoy the language of it myself and when I first prayed to God, that is what he gave me so I would take issue with your irrational characterization of it.
2007-02-15 19:37:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋