NIV – The Nearly Inspired Version?

Written by Ryan Lytton

Social media is a funny thing. Content circulates, even after being proven wrong. Case in point, a friend shared this post with me and asked me to explain it. It’s come up a few times in the past, and I’ve addressed it somewhat informally a few times (not to mention several other responses to the claims). Even so, in taking a fresh look at it, I’ve seen a few things that hadn’t been previously addressed. So, I’ve decided a more formal response was in order. 

For various reasons, the NIV is often derided (hence the joke in the title). While it is not my favorite translation, it is absolutely a fine translation that is worthy of being used by anyone who wants a faithful and readable translation of scripture. There are issues (most of which can be understood by surveying its Wikipedia page), but none of them warrant the kind of vilification that is often directed at it. It is to the strongest such condemnations that we will now turn. 

NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

This is misleading in several ways. 

1. First, while Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins, the NIV is still owned by Biblica. Zondervan (and by extension, HarperCollins) is simply licensed the publish the NIV. They don’t have any oversight regarding its content. Period. Additionally, one should also note that HarperCollins also owns Thomas Nelson. What does Thomas Nelson publish? The KJV. 

2. It’s also true that the Satanic Bible is published by them, and The Joy of Gay Sex. It should also be noted, however, that reputable pastors and theologians from across the theological spectrum like CS Lewis, John MacArthur, and Rick Warren are also published with HarperCollins. 

The NIV and ESV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible 

This is incredibly misleading, and results from a fundamental misunderstanding of how translation works. They didn't "remove" anything. They just decided to word their translation a different way. Maybe you don't like that decision, but that doesn't mean they "removed" anything. That isn't how translation works.

including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few...

1. Jehovah - This isn't in the Bible to begin with. In the Old Testament, the word יְהוָה (YHWH) is God's proper name. This name is NOT pronounced Jehovah, if for no other reason than Hebrew has no 'J.' There are plenty of discussions regarding the proper pronunciation, but there is literally no reason to believe that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation. 

2. Calvary - The hill on which Christ died was Golgotha, which means "the place of the skull." In Latin that is translated Calvarius, and hence many people also call it Calvary. The only verse which mentions "Calvary" in scripture is Luke 23:33 in the King James. This seems to be based on the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the translation of the KJV. Other translations of Luke 23:33 simply say "the skull" or something like it, which is perfectly legitimate, and is not "removing anything from scripture.”

3. Holy Ghost - This is also not technically in the Bible, although I suppose it is an adequate translation of the phrase πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (pneuma to hagion). There aren't any places in scripture that I can find that have replaced "Holy Ghost" with something other than "Holy Spirit." No huge conspiracy here.

4. Omnipotent - This is absolutely the worst one on the list, and it makes me wonder whether the person who composed this graphic (and others like it) actually read their Bibles at all. "Omnipotent" only occurs in one verse and only in the KJV, where it is not even a great translation. That doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach that God is omnipotent. It just means it doesn't use that word, except for in Revelation 19:6 in the KJV where it is not the best translation of παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator). So, when the NIV chooses "Almighty," they are actually much closer to what παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator) actually means in that context. This is likely because the author has the Hebrew phrase אֵל שַׁדַּי (‘el shadai) in mind, which is usually understood as “Almighty.” 

Now for the best part. All those deleted verses. I'm not going to go through verse by verse here. I have an NIV, printed by Zondervan (apparently back in the good ole days), and it does not have any of these verses. Yup. That's right. I also have a NASB printed by Zondervan. It doesn't have them either. What it has is a marginal note that says "Some manuscripts have..." And that's what you'll likely find on any electronic device if you look these verses up. There's no crazy conspiracy to change the Bible.Here's what happened. The KJV translators didn't have a lot of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to work with. The ones they had were later, and not of the best quality in general. Hence the aforementioned reliance on things like the Latin Vulgate. Since then we have found all sorts of manuscripts to help us in determining the text of the New Testament. These manuscripts were a huge help because many of them were much earlier. And one thing we noticed was that these earlier manuscripts didn't have a lot of the verses that were in our later manuscripts. So... we decided to leave them out.

No conspiracy. The devil isn't behind the NIV. You don't have to abandon all use of electronic Bibles because publishing houses are updating them and removing stuff. That isn't happening.

Finally, there is a more recent addition to this inexplicably popular post that seems to indicate an even deeper issue with the NIV. Not only is it removing verses (it’s not). It’s removing them specifically to undermine certain doctrines. Why did Jesus come to earth? Well, if the NIV is trying to hide his purpose from us, it’s doing a terrible job.

Look at Luke 19:10 – “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Oops. I guess they missed that one. While we’re at it, some people try to claim that the NIV downplays Jesus’ divinity. Well…it still has John 1 in it, along with a ton of other passages which support his divinity. 

So, in summation…there is no conspiracy here. The NIV is a fine translation which was completed by excellent scholars of the Bible. It’s trustworthy and worthy of your use. All of these crazy statements aren’t worth your time. If you know people who are falling for this stuff, feel free to share this post with them. ☺ 

Translations

Written by Ryan Lytton

Why are there so many Bible translations? How do we choose which one to use? Often the decision is made on the basis of subjective feelings about the rendering of a familiar text. However, without some training in Biblical languages, this feeling might be misguided. So…what are we left to do? 

Here’s an example of one of the difficulties in translation: currency. 

Genesis 24:22 - After the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing half a shekel, and for her wrists two bracelets weighing 10 shekels of gold.

What is a shekel? How do we know the weight that is being discussed here, or the resulting value? Well, we could translate it to modern currency. But then we’d have to adjust our translation regularly as the value of our currency changes. This illustrates quite well the difficulty of translation. There are ancient concepts in scripture, conveyed in ancient languages. The closer we try to stick to the ancient concept or language, the harder it will be for us to understand. But as we attempt to move that needle towards understanding, we are potentially moving it away from accuracy. 

Let’s try a concrete example. No cheating. 

וְגַם־אֲנִי נָתַתִּי לָכֶם נִקְיוֹן שִׁנַּיִם בְּכָל־עָרֵיכֶם וְחֹסֶר לֶחֶם בְּכֹל מְקוֹמֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא־שַׁבְתֶּם עָדַי נְאֻם־יְהוָה

If we were to translate this as literally as possible into English, we would end up with something like this: 

And also I I gave to you (bluntness, innocence, cleanness) of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread in all your places and you have not turned to me says the Lord.

I’ve given you one word to translate - נִקְיוֹן. This word can mean bluntness, innocence, or cleanness. Here are some examples of it in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

• Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence (נִקְיוֹן) of my hands I have done this.”  (Genesis 20:5 NASB)

• I shall wash my hands in innocence (נִקְיוֹן), And I will go about Your altar, O Lord, (Psalms 26:6 NASB)

• Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure, And washed my hands in innocence (נִקְיוֹן); (Psalms 73:13 NASB)

• He has rejected your calf, O Samaria, saying, “My anger burns against them!” How long will they be incapable of innocence? (נִקְיוֹן) (Hosea 8:5 NASB)

What does it mean for someone to have innocence of teeth? This verse will help us explore the various approaches to translation. Let’s start with the so-called literal ones. 

NKJV – “Also I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, And lack of bread in all your places; Yet you have not returned to Me,” Says the LORD. 

The King James is not much help here. Also, most of the other literal translations tend to stick closely with the King James unless there’s a good reason to divert from it. So…we’re left with the equivalent of shekel. We may know what the text says, but we might struggle with what it means. 

NIV – “I gave you empty stomachs in every city and lack of bread in every town, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

The NIV tries to maintain the overall sentence structure as best it can. However, it does provide an interpretation of cleanness. According to the translation committee, the teeth in question are clean because they’ve had nothing to eat. 

CSB – I gave you absolutely nothing to eat* in all your cities, a shortage of food in all your communities, yet you did not return to Me.  This is the LORD’s declaration.

• The * leads to a marginal note that reads: Lit cleanness of teeth.

The CSB splits the difference between the two. It preserves the sentence structure, provides an interpretation where needed. But it also provides a marginal note with the literal reading. This way, you can read more or less what the text says, as well as how that has been interpreted for you. 

NLT – “I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town.  But still you would not return to me,” says the LORD.

The NLT moves the needle even further, abandoning the finer points of the sentence structure in favor of better English. The goal is to make it much easier for the reader to understand. 

The Message – “You know, don’t you, that I’m the One who emptied your pantries and cleaned out your cupboards, Who left you hungry and standing in bread lines?  But you never got hungry for me. You continued to ignore me.” God’s Decree.

The Message is on the far end of the spectrum-- possibly as far from literal as you can get. Instead of literal, you get literary. The sole translator of the Message, Eugene Peterson, was striving for the heart of the passage. In my opinion, it often achieves precisely that. It makes the scriptures sound like a real person talking. However, just as the King James gave us what the text says but perhaps didn’t deliver what the text meant, the Message does exactly the opposite. It attempts to give you what the text means, but in doing so it may stray too far from what the text says. Peterson adds and removes entire words or even phrases. This may sometimes be helpful, but it may also be very harmful. 

Ultimately what is best depends to a large degree on the person. If you are a new believer, the NASB is probably going to be overwhelming. Likewise, the Message probably shouldn’t be your primary Bible for the rest of your spiritual life. In light of this, many people advocate a comparative approach, which is indeed helpful. Nevertheless, the best Bible translation is the one you will actually read. So, judge according to your needs, and in light of what you’ve hopefully learned from this post.