kjv or niv

I currently use kjv, which I believe to be the infallible and only true word of Go- almighty, and faithful to the original Greek. Many Catholics use niv, which is great in the sense of smooth readability, but I have a hard time with what this website points out. I have not verified his comparisons, but for arguments sake I will assume they are true for now. How can Catholics use niv if what this points out is fact? Please understand I ask this question in the spirit of my thirst for knowledge and truth, and my love for our Lord. I apologize if this thread is a duplicate.
ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Unless you are fluent in Koine Greek you are going to have to deal with agenda driven translations. It’s not a big deal. Remember, the Holy Bible is not the Koran. No one should expect every word to be translated in a way they agree with.

If I were you I would use your KJV. I for one don’t know how Catholics can use the NIV. Unfortunately a priest did recommend the NIV to my sister. Being a Catholic I would not use it as my study bible. It does have some things in it that are ok. It give a little bio of some of the more important figures in the bible that I find interesting.

I use several bibles in my study and on a rare occasion the NIV. I think it is not a bad idea to compare verses from bible to bible sometimes it can clear up a difficult verse.

Just another thought: I read you quote from Revelations. You do know that the book that we should not add or subtract from is the book of Revelations?

God Bless

Yes, that is specifically in reference to revelations, but I also like to think of things in context. If he doesn’t want us to tamper with the prophecy, would it be logical to presume he holds the same sentiment to John, or book of Romans, or any other work within the book? He is a perfect and supreme being, I think it’s arrogant to take things out of his divine work that aren’t necessarily things we want to hear, just as the comparisons show. Then again, perhaps the same logic applies to the interpretist school of thought like myself. I always pray for guidance, but still in the learning process.

Lol no but it would be great if I did know a little Greek, but as that’s not the case, I have to trust that a commission of 50 carefully chosen scholars had honest intentions. Think of how hard it is to reach a consensus about something as menial as dinner between a small family, now imagine 50 scholars with possibly different personalities and opinions agreeing on something as colossal as an accurate translation of The Bible… it had to have been divinely inspired. Assuming you’re American, you know that our lawmakers can’t even agree on the yearly budget!

I know a lot of people say they would never use an NIV translation, which I think is a bit strange. For a very long time the NIV was the only Bible that I owned (it was a gift from a family friend) and, being that my family wasn’t a church-going bunch, it was practically the only exposure to religion of any kind that I had growing up.

It was because of the scripture in the NIV that I finally sought out the Church and decided to become a Catholic. (I’m currently in RCIA).

I do have a Catholic Bible that the parish gave to me to aid in my studies, and aside from the fact that the NIV doesn’t have all the books, I haven’t noticed any major differences or ‘anti-catholic’ sentiments that I’ve heard other people on the forum mention.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I guess I just don’t share in the opinion that the NIV translation is inferior or wrong. It is still the first one that I reach for when I want to read scripture, and it has served me very well thus far.

Wow, you’re one of those KJV onlyist? And you’re Lutheran? I didn’t realize Evangelical Fundamentalism was sneaking its way into your denomination. But anyway the KJV, like all other English translations, has it’s problems. The NIV might actually be more accurate than the KJV because it was translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars and Historians all agree they are more accurate than what the KJV was translated from, which was the Textus Receptus. KJV onlyism (don’t mean to offend) has some pretty pathetic arguments. It’s arguments are similar to the Douay Rheims onlyist movement among some Traditionalist Catholics. But I would take the NIV over the KJV any day. The KJV is good but the NIV was translated from better manuscripts. But you know what I would take over both of those versions? I would take the NJB over them because it actually has all the books of the Bible in it. Both the NIV and the KJV are missing several books from the Old Testament as well as some sections in Daniel and Esther.

I have no problem with the KJV, however I’m not really sure where the inflated idea of its perfection comes from, nor why the number of scholars is impressive. The NIV had 100 scholars and it took them 10 years to render the first edition. The 47 scholars that the original 1611 had were broken in 6 groups, 2 each sent to three different locations and tasked with a certain number of books to translate. Interestingly, group #2 sent to Oxford was tasked with the deuterocanonical books, which were omitted in 1879. At that time, there were 6 prevalent English Bibles being used in the Church of England and King James sought to unify his church with everyone using the same version, hence the commissioning. Though certainly a decent version, neither King James nor his scholars ever exaggerated its perfection like is done today.

Neither one of them, IMHO.

RSV

In catechism class, depending on which translation works best for the point I want to make:
KJV, Douay-Reims Challoner, RSV-CE, NAB-CE. Most of the time it’s the NAB-CE because it’s what the kids hear at Mass.

Eh, i like the Douey Rheims, like the Catholic version of KJV, and Revised Standard Version. But i also use kjv, and niv, and good news, and new american standard and new american bible and new king james. I LOVE trying to fing the best version( imho the first two i mentioned) but howeveri dont really care unless im studying. if its a short reference or prayer or reading devotionally, i really use whatever version is nearest to my hands at the moment…

Do you think it is perfectly faithful to the original Greek in all cases?

Many Catholics use niv, which is great in the sense of smooth readability, but I have a hard time with what this website points out. I have not verified his comparisons, but for arguments sake I will assume they are true for now. How can Catholics use niv if what this points out is fact?

I do not use the NIV, but I think the comparisons often made between the kjv and the niv by KJV-onlyists aren’t based in good scholarship.

I think the 50 scholars probably had reasonably honest intentions, but I have a question: do you think they had more honest intentions than other committees that translated other bibles?

For example, I think the Douay-Rheims translation is faithful to the original Greek, and I think the scholars who translated it had honest intentions. The Douay-Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation of the Bible into English that came out years before the KJV, and the KJV people used it as a reference. Why do you think they changed anything from a Bible that came before them?

Also, I think there is evidence that the 50 scholars who translated the KJV did not always agree among themselves. The original KJV has marginal notes indicating where some members of the translating committee thought verses should be translated differently than the majority of the committee thought. In those cases, the committee went with the majority of the translators and made a marginal note saying that there was a division in the committee over that verse. Have you ever heard that before?

Does that include the “s” at the end of the Book of Revelation?

While there are Catholics who use the NIV, it’s not recommended for Catholic use. The NIV is a Protestant translation. American Catholics tend to use the New American Bible (which is a different translation from the Protestant New American Standard Bible).

I don’t know where you got that we mostly use the NIV, because that’s sure not a Catholic translation, very few of us use it, and to my knowledge there is no edition of it that is complete with the Deuterocanonical books included, so why would we use it except as perhaps a reference to discuss with some n-Cs?

We have the New American Bible which is a better translation than the NIV and yet just as readable.

To carry this thought process out further, I personally would never use the KJV when I have the Douay-Rheims Bible which has that same nice period English, has all 73 books, and more accurate than all of the above.

Between the DRB and the RSV-CE 2, we Catholics have excellent Bible choices.

Actually there is no “s” in the title of the book. It is just Revelation. It is the Revelation to St. John.

I agree. The Scripture should not be tampered with. Especially to make it agree with a specific theology.

How bizarre that a Lutheran believes only an Anglican translation of the Bible is the proper one to use.

I address that in another thread, #12. Many of the other translations are in error as well, not just niv.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=909255

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.