Thank you for your video. I'm a Buddhist but I like reading the Bible. I read the NIV, and find it understandable. I think when the Bible translation that you read is criticised and you are told that it is wrong in some way, then that can really undermine a person's confidence and then they might end up not bothering with it at all, and that would be a real shame. Thanks again for all your videos.
Don't let anyone tell you what translation to use, if you like the NIV that's great. There's nothing wrong with it, some people just don't like the NIV because it uses some gender inclusive language, but only where a passage is aimed at men and women, so it's writing it in today's English. I use the NIV as my main translation, I love it because it has a great balance between word for word and thought for thought.
I like the NIV but translation of adelphoi is not the only issue with the NIV. They translate the Hebrew word for women as weaklings in Isaiah 19:16, Jeremiah 50:37 Jeremiah 51:30, and Nahum 3:13. It is obvious tome they don’t like the idea of saying “you guys are a bunch of girls”, but that is what it says. It is those types of reasons I could never use the NIV as my primary translation.
I came across your translation series and find it quite interesting. The Old Testament hebrew translated to greek was done word for word (formal equivalence). Later on from greek to latin was also in the formal equivalence, on and on. I'm pretty sure the latin and near eastern orientals would find their translation very difficult to understand. But they still retained the word for word, without putting in ideas to simplify the bible in their vernacular tongue. When the western world inherit the ancient greek manuscripts they were reportedly 90% in agreement word for word among the tens of thousands, spanning from Spain to Iran (Persia). That was why text criticism could be applied to dish out bad grammar and added words. When comes to modern languages (english being one). There is this concept of making the translations accessible at the expense of formal equivalency. (There are paraphrase translations, notably the Peshitta, or 'simple', in the old world; but they were clearly labelled as such, distinguishing it from the formal equivalence and thus preserving the word.) 1000 years from now, where the original greek and hebrew are lost. Imagine the bibles scholars and translators having to sieve through the myriad of bible versions, and argue among themselves whether do the text read "one who pisseth against the wall" KJV, or just "male" in NASB (reputedly the most formal equivalent version).
I agree with everything you said here. The NIV has been accused of a lot of things, for example, it’s been accused of changing essential Christian doctrine, Matthew 5:22 (without a cause has been “removed”) v.32 and 19:9, “removing“ the word effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9. It’s even been accused of “removing,” “eliminating,” and “deleting” entire verses. I could go on and on here, but you get the idea. I have been reading the NIV for 35 years since the ‘84 revision and it’s a translation that I trust. If anyone accuses me of reading the “devil’s Bible,” I WILL defend the translation and maybe even spin it back on my accusers, if I have to.
Talferio M. Corbett That’s why I have been reading it for so long. It’s not only beautiful to read and hear, it’s also accurate in the way it translates the Greek.
Love the violins and sad face. If he could shed a tear next time, it would be even funnier. Love your videos. As far as the NIV goes, it depends on which version one reads. I don't use it much at all, too many good word for word translations out there.
I would generally agree with your assessment of the NIV. I also agree with the comments that point out it IS egalitarian, much as the ESV is complementarian. That passage in James you read is the best example I can think of. James says not many should be teachers, brothers. NIV says brothers and sisters because in the egalitarian view a teacher can be either, ESV goes brothers only because 1 Timothy says our ears are going to drop off if a woman teaches us in church on Sunday (just kidding! Mostly). Point is, there are indeed locations where their doctrinal leanings influence their decisions on context. But I do agree that the NIV is neither liberal nor politically correct. No mainstream Bible translation is politically correct. That being said, I also understand what those who are using that term mean. I used to read and study from the 1984 NIV, but I’ve gone on to prefer a more literal and formal translation (I’m an NKJV fan) for study, and for reading I find myself gravitating toward the CSB and the NET. The NIV has fallen to the wayside for me, not because it’s BAD but just because there’s not a place for it in my preferences. In the end, you should read whatever translation you enjoy enough to read regularly, because regular reading of the Bible is what’s important (we always seem to wind up here don’t we?).
When they print a Bible translation literally called “the first egalitarian Bible” they are at the same time admitting that for the last 2000 years the Bible has clearly been complementarian.
I love your videos! I wish i had one go to translation, but I’m so drawn to 4. Esv, Niv, Csb and the Knjv. I spend more time in the Esv and Nkjv, but when things are unclear I refer to the Csb and Niv. I was saved using the 1984 Niv which I still have, along with many many many bibles and translations. I feel in my heart, if you are truly seeking God and his word, he will bring you to the translation that speaks to you. It makes me sad when people are ridiculed for not using a certain translation. If the end goal for all of us is to get to heaven, does it really matter which bible we use? I know some will say absolutely and I agree there are some that paraphrase way to much. I think the NLT which I own would be as far to that side of the slide I would go. I’m sorry for rambling, worship and seek God with whatever Translation works for you and brings you to him, but have a literal translation to compare, and study. Thank you for all the videos and thanks to all the awesome comments with helpful info. God bless
I grew up on the 1984 NIV. It's a great translation for new Christians but I feel the 2011 has begun the slippery slope towards gender neutrality, starting with some, but nonetheless important verses. I agree some of the changes make sense but others instances are clearly done for the sake of political correctness. 1 Kings 9:5-6 in the 2011 version is an example of political correctness.
Thank you, Tim. I'm glad you used the NIV 2011 as the basis for this topic. I purchased the NIV 2011 the year it was introduced. This was the first bible where I read, "brothers and sisters" for the first time. These days the NIV and NLT are read from the pulpit in our congregation. In addition, I study from the CSB.
If the Greek does not say "sisters" then it's not accurate and it is political correctness and interpretation rather than translation. The Greek does have the word "sisters" in its vocabulary but it's not used for a reason when it refers to the congregation of God like brethren. God didn't inspire the authors to write it. So the language GOD decided to use was masculine inclusive like "mankind", "he that believes", "brethren", "let every man be a liar and God true" etc... and not political correctness like adding words "and sisters". Are we going to correct now God's words? 😁 The NIV should have left the 1984 version alone. The same thing goes for the CSB. I realised it does it too, so that's another one to keep an eye on. We should influence the world not the world influence Bible translations.
i have the 1984 niv and it does not have any gender nuetral prnounds that i am aware of the problem i see is that we are to preocupied with makig the world feel warm and fuzzy and we prioritise what the world is gona think that we tend to forget James 4.4 read it that always gets my mind back to who do i want to please thanks Frish
Interesting, I didn't know that about the NIV Bible. It is in second place for sales, next to the #1 KJV. After the NIV, it is the NKJV. I have the KJV, and the NKJV. And, soon to be, the ESV.
There can be no question the NIV 2011 leans egalitarian in general and went out of its way to eliminate male references everywhere it possibly could, and then some. At 1 Cor 16:13 the NIV 2011 is reprehensible. Andrizomai means “to act manly” ... it has no other meaning!! NIV 1984 read, “be men of courage”, which is MUCH better if one feels the need to interpret what “manliness” means. Psalm 8 is another one, turned plural to eliminate “him” when in Hebrews 2 the author specifically applies it to a MAN, namely Jesus Christ. The CBT has come out and said evangelicals are the main audience for the NIV. That may be a good thing, given the alternatives. The NIV 2011 does have its strengths, but that wasn’t the subject of this video
Interestingly, though, the NKJV (which is hardly an "egalitarian" translation) went with "be brave" in 1 Cor. 16.13 long before the NIV did. Even before that, the RSV used "be courageous" in the passage. That's the problem with assuming that a certain translation choice _must_ have an agenda behind it: there are always counterexamples.
Brethren- so much the better. I read the NIV 11’ update, but not as my primary bible translation. I reach for the kjv, nkjv, nasb, hcsb/csb and esv. We are blessed by many bible translations- but as Christians we have vexed the Spirit by the over the top criticism of bible translations. What if rocks could proclaim the Gospel.. and people accepted. I have no doubt that any bible translation can benefit the church. We have preferences, we hear God’s voice in his word. My hope is people could return to reading the whole bible and learn to memorize on his word. Find a memorable bible translation, and place it in your mind , heart and soul.
Personally I don't find the NIV politically correct. Yes it uses some gender inclusive language, but that's when a verse or passage is aiming at men and women, so it will say brothers and sisters to make that clear. I use the NIV as my main Bible translation because I like how understandable it is, and that it's in today's English.
My 1984 NIV seems sane. I only have it as it was a gift after a fire from my then Pastor. Then 2 years ago, got a new NIV, opened it, read a couple verses, closed it, it's on the shelf. I don't even know why I got it. No doubt about it, I am officially NIV - Negative! I won't even listen to Pastors who are lost enough to use an NIV. *Nothing* will ever replace the King James, which is the BEST. They can *KEEP* their "Gender inclusive" language. (AND all their errors). King James is the BEST, and nothing can convince me otherwise ever again.
You don't get it and this is kind of difficult for me to explain. Quit being respecter of persons. Is God a respecter of persons? Yes, Daniel Wallace, the NIV translators, and the NLT guys may be called a who's who among Greek scholars. But it doesn't matter if their translation philosophy is wrong. Does a congregation (church) consist of only "brothers and sisters"? Guess what you left out sons & daughters! And they want to be addressed too. So our modern 2023 Romans 1:13 version should read like this: I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, and boys and girls, and Max (our doggy)... Prepare to get triggered. Their first century culture and Christian families operate under a headship with men leading; men as leaders in the family. So these apostles address the leadership, who then address their families. That is why Paul addresses the church as: brothers/brethren. In colloquial language I say, "Hey *guys let's go to the park." When I'm talking to men and women; not just "guys". I don't feel the need to spell it all out. But today we're offended because someone feels left out. Your James 3:1 (4:46) is not a good example, because women are not to be "teachers". You and I are going to be under a greater judgement because we desire to teach the Word of God. So care should be taken - handling accurately the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Regarding who can teach (male or female): A woman must learn in silence with all submission. (12) And I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man; instead, to be silent. (1 Tim 2:11f MRT). If a person reads on this command is based on the creative order. Man created first, then woman. By adding "sisters" you would be making James contradict Paul - μὴ γένοιτο (may it never be!): Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers [and sisters]. James 3:1. [sisters] added I am a Bible translator and the NIV is considered to be the beginning of the downfall of English translations. So all these other translations (CSB etc.) are and have been influenced by the NIV. This may be part of the reason why many are KJVO (KJV only). Although KJVO advocates may not know exactly why they dislike modern translations, they know intuitively in their spirit that something is wrong - like the gender inclusive language.
Referring to Isaiah 14 - in context "lucifer/shining star" refers to a MAN, the King of babylon. The notion that satan, the devil is actually named "lucifer" is false. Jesus Christ is the bright and morningstar. (Rev 22:16)
I honestly don’t think the morning star point has any weight, as for even in the KJV both satan and Christ are referred to as a lion, one as a lion seeking whom he may devour, the other as the lion of Judah. It doesn’t mean people are gonna get confused and think Jesus and satan are the same
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for your video. I'm a Buddhist but I like reading the Bible. I read the NIV, and find it understandable. I think when the Bible translation that you read is criticised and you are told that it is wrong in some way, then that can really undermine a person's confidence and then they might end up not bothering with it at all, and that would be a real shame.
Thanks again for all your videos.
Robert Williams Keep reading your NIV. The more you read, the more truth you will find. God bless.
Don't let anyone tell you what translation to use, if you like the NIV that's great. There's nothing wrong with it, some people just don't like the NIV because it uses some gender inclusive language, but only where a passage is aimed at men and women, so it's writing it in today's English. I use the NIV as my main translation, I love it because it has a great balance between word for word and thought for thought.
I like the NIV but translation of adelphoi is not the only issue with the NIV. They translate the Hebrew word for women as weaklings in Isaiah 19:16, Jeremiah 50:37 Jeremiah 51:30, and Nahum 3:13. It is obvious tome they don’t like the idea of saying “you guys are a bunch of girls”, but that is what it says. It is those types of reasons I could never use the NIV as my primary translation.
I came across your translation series and find it quite interesting.
The Old Testament hebrew translated to greek was done word for word (formal equivalence). Later on from greek to latin was also in the formal equivalence, on and on. I'm pretty sure the latin and near eastern orientals would find their translation very difficult to understand. But they still retained the word for word, without putting in ideas to simplify the bible in their vernacular tongue.
When the western world inherit the ancient greek manuscripts they were reportedly 90% in agreement word for word among the tens of thousands, spanning from Spain to Iran (Persia). That was why text criticism could be applied to dish out bad grammar and added words.
When comes to modern languages (english being one). There is this concept of making the translations accessible at the expense of formal equivalency. (There are paraphrase translations, notably the Peshitta, or 'simple', in the old world; but they were clearly labelled as such, distinguishing it from the formal equivalence and thus preserving the word.)
1000 years from now, where the original greek and hebrew are lost. Imagine the bibles scholars and translators having to sieve through the myriad of bible versions, and argue among themselves whether do the text read "one who pisseth against the wall" KJV, or just "male" in NASB (reputedly the most formal equivalent version).
I agree with everything you said here.
The NIV has been accused of a lot of things, for example, it’s been accused of changing essential Christian doctrine, Matthew 5:22 (without a cause has been “removed”) v.32 and 19:9, “removing“ the word effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9. It’s even been accused of “removing,” “eliminating,” and “deleting” entire verses. I could go on and on here, but you get the idea.
I have been reading the NIV for 35 years since the ‘84 revision and it’s a translation that I trust. If anyone accuses me of reading the “devil’s Bible,” I WILL defend the translation and maybe even spin it back on my accusers, if I have to.
I love the NIV, it is a beautiful translation.
Talferio M. Corbett That’s why I have been reading it for so long. It’s not only beautiful to read and hear, it’s also accurate in the way it translates the Greek.
Amen brother
Another wonderful video Tim. Thank you.
Love the violins and sad face. If he could shed a tear next time, it would be even funnier. Love your videos. As far as the NIV goes, it depends on which version one reads. I don't use it much at all, too many good word for word translations out there.
I would generally agree with your assessment of the NIV. I also agree with the comments that point out it IS egalitarian, much as the ESV is complementarian. That passage in James you read is the best example I can think of. James says not many should be teachers, brothers. NIV says brothers and sisters because in the egalitarian view a teacher can be either, ESV goes brothers only because 1 Timothy says our ears are going to drop off if a woman teaches us in church on Sunday (just kidding! Mostly). Point is, there are indeed locations where their doctrinal leanings influence their decisions on context. But I do agree that the NIV is neither liberal nor politically correct. No mainstream Bible translation is politically correct. That being said, I also understand what those who are using that term mean. I used to read and study from the 1984 NIV, but I’ve gone on to prefer a more literal and formal translation (I’m an NKJV fan) for study, and for reading I find myself gravitating toward the CSB and the NET. The NIV has fallen to the wayside for me, not because it’s BAD but just because there’s not a place for it in my preferences. In the end, you should read whatever translation you enjoy enough to read regularly, because regular reading of the Bible is what’s important (we always seem to wind up here don’t we?).
When they print a Bible translation literally called “the first egalitarian Bible” they are at the same time admitting that for the last 2000 years the Bible has clearly been complementarian.
I love your videos! I wish i had one go to translation, but I’m so drawn to 4. Esv, Niv, Csb and the Knjv. I spend more time in the Esv and Nkjv, but when things are unclear I refer to the Csb and Niv. I was saved using the 1984 Niv which I still have, along with many many many bibles and translations. I feel in my heart, if you are truly seeking God and his word, he will bring you to the translation that speaks to you. It makes me sad when people are ridiculed for not using a certain translation. If the end goal for all of us is to get to heaven, does it really matter which bible we use? I know some will say absolutely and I agree there are some that paraphrase way to much. I think the NLT which I own would be as far to that side of the slide I would go. I’m sorry for rambling, worship and seek God with whatever Translation works for you and brings you to him, but have a literal translation to compare, and study. Thank you for all the videos and thanks to all the awesome comments with helpful info. God bless
I grew up on the 1984 NIV. It's a great translation for new Christians but I feel the 2011 has begun the slippery slope towards gender neutrality, starting with some, but nonetheless important verses. I agree some of the changes make sense but others instances are clearly done for the sake of political correctness. 1 Kings 9:5-6 in the 2011 version is an example of political correctness.
Thank you for the video sir God bless you 😊.
Thank you, Tim. I'm glad you used the NIV 2011 as the basis for this topic. I purchased the NIV 2011 the year it was introduced. This was the first bible where I read, "brothers and sisters" for the first time. These days the NIV and NLT are read from the pulpit in our congregation. In addition, I study from the CSB.
The NIV is not only the best-selling Bible in the United States, it is also the best-selling Bible in the U.K.
It's the best selling Bible translation internationally.
Excellent job. Thank you for sorting the "gender inclusive" and "gender accurate" problem.
I love the violin music lol!
Love you brother for speaking the truth. Keep fighting the good fight
Amen and Amen!!
If the Greek does not say "sisters" then it's not accurate and it is political correctness and interpretation rather than translation. The Greek does have the word "sisters" in its vocabulary but it's not used for a reason when it refers to the congregation of God like brethren. God didn't inspire the authors to write it. So the language GOD decided to use was masculine inclusive like "mankind", "he that believes", "brethren", "let every man be a liar and God true" etc... and not political correctness like adding words "and sisters". Are we going to correct now God's words? 😁 The NIV should have left the 1984 version alone. The same thing goes for the CSB. I realised it does it too, so that's another one to keep an eye on. We should influence the world not the world influence Bible translations.
I think people that claim that the NIV is not a good translation are mentally disturbed.
Very informative!
i have the 1984 niv and it does not have any gender nuetral prnounds that i am aware of the problem i see is that we are to preocupied with makig the world feel warm and fuzzy and we prioritise what the world is gona think that we tend to forget James 4.4 read it that always gets my mind back to who do i want to please thanks Frish
Interesting, I didn't know that about the NIV Bible. It is in second place for sales, next to the #1 KJV. After the NIV, it is the NKJV. I have the KJV, and the NKJV. And, soon to be, the ESV.
Standard old English KJV is best and get yourself the exhaustive Strong's concordance
There can be no question the NIV 2011 leans egalitarian in general and went out of its way to eliminate male references everywhere it possibly could, and then some. At 1 Cor 16:13 the NIV 2011 is reprehensible. Andrizomai means “to act manly” ... it has no other meaning!! NIV 1984 read, “be men of courage”, which is MUCH better if one feels the need to interpret what “manliness” means. Psalm 8 is another one, turned plural to eliminate “him” when in Hebrews 2 the author specifically applies it to a MAN, namely Jesus Christ.
The CBT has come out and said evangelicals are the main audience for the NIV. That may be a good thing, given the alternatives. The NIV 2011 does have its strengths, but that wasn’t the subject of this video
Interestingly, though, the NKJV (which is hardly an "egalitarian" translation) went with "be brave" in 1 Cor. 16.13 long before the NIV did. Even before that, the RSV used "be courageous" in the passage. That's the problem with assuming that a certain translation choice _must_ have an agenda behind it: there are always counterexamples.
Brethren- so much the better. I read the NIV 11’ update, but not as my primary bible translation. I reach for the kjv, nkjv, nasb, hcsb/csb and esv. We are blessed by many bible translations- but as Christians we have vexed the Spirit by the over the top criticism of bible translations. What if rocks could proclaim the Gospel.. and people accepted. I have no doubt that any bible translation can benefit the church. We have preferences, we hear God’s voice in his word. My hope is people could return to reading the whole bible and learn to memorize on his word. Find a memorable bible translation, and place it in your mind , heart and soul.
Personally I don't find the NIV politically correct. Yes it uses some gender inclusive language, but that's when a verse or passage is aiming at men and women, so it will say brothers and sisters to make that clear. I use the NIV as my main Bible translation because I like how understandable it is, and that it's in today's English.
My 1984 NIV seems sane. I only have it as it was a gift after a fire from my then Pastor. Then 2 years ago, got a new NIV, opened it, read a couple verses, closed it, it's on the shelf. I don't even know why I got it. No doubt about it, I am officially NIV - Negative! I won't even listen to Pastors who are lost enough to use an NIV. *Nothing* will ever replace the King James, which is the BEST.
They can *KEEP* their "Gender inclusive" language. (AND all their errors). King James is the BEST, and nothing can convince me otherwise ever again.
You don't get it and this is kind of difficult for me to explain.
Quit being respecter of persons. Is God a respecter of persons? Yes, Daniel Wallace, the NIV translators, and the NLT guys may be called a who's who among Greek scholars. But it doesn't matter if their translation philosophy is wrong.
Does a congregation (church) consist of only "brothers and sisters"? Guess what you left out sons & daughters! And they want to be addressed too. So our modern 2023 Romans 1:13 version should read like this:
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, and boys and girls, and Max (our doggy)...
Prepare to get triggered. Their first century culture and Christian families operate under a headship with men leading; men as leaders in the family. So these apostles address the leadership, who then address their families. That is why Paul addresses the church as: brothers/brethren.
In colloquial language I say, "Hey *guys let's go to the park." When I'm talking to men and women; not just "guys". I don't feel the need to spell it all out. But today we're offended because someone feels left out.
Your James 3:1 (4:46) is not a good example, because women are not to be "teachers". You and I are going to be under a greater judgement because we desire to teach the Word of God. So care should be taken - handling accurately the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).
Regarding who can teach (male or female):
A woman must learn in silence with all submission. (12) And I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man; instead, to be silent. (1 Tim 2:11f MRT). If a person reads on this command is based on the creative order. Man created first, then woman.
By adding "sisters" you would be making James contradict Paul - μὴ γένοιτο (may it never be!):
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers [and sisters]. James 3:1. [sisters] added
I am a Bible translator and the NIV is considered to be the beginning of the downfall of English translations. So all these other translations (CSB etc.) are and have been influenced by the NIV. This may be part of the reason why many are KJVO (KJV only). Although KJVO advocates may not know exactly why they dislike modern translations, they know intuitively in their spirit that something is wrong - like the gender inclusive language.
I love yo videos
its junk thats why its attacked its worthless just make more money
And what about the part where it says Jesus is lucifer? Generally interested
Referring to Isaiah 14 - in context "lucifer/shining star" refers to a MAN, the King of babylon.
The notion that satan, the devil is actually named "lucifer" is false.
Jesus Christ is the bright and morningstar. (Rev 22:16)
I honestly don’t think the morning star point has any weight, as for even in the KJV both satan and Christ are referred to as a lion, one as a lion seeking whom he may devour, the other as the lion of Judah. It doesn’t mean people are gonna get confused and think Jesus and satan are the same
First