NIV Bible

Yay or nay?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not bad, not as pretty as the KJV. Still much better than not reading the bible

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      yep

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I still preferred the KJV though

      KJV is the midwit translation

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

        >superfluity of naughtiness
        That means shitposts like yours

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s missing 7 books.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      it’s fine. you’ll miss out on the specific verbiage that inspired much of English literature but it’s close enough. it’s my reference Bible translation because I can’t be fricked to wade through 17th century double negatives and -ths and thous when I’m just trying to look up a specific story.

      they make editions w the apocrypha / deuterocanonical books

      ]
      Nay

      NASB bible best bible

      if you’re doing serious serious study, yeah probably, but it’s not great for casual or reference reading. imo the NIV’s clear enough to read smoothly without making the Bible sound like it was written by some Christ-drunk gen x’er

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > they make editions w the apocrypha / deuterocanonical books
        No, with the NIV, they don’t.
        I’d be happy to be proven wrong though. I might buy it myself.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, sure. I prefer ESV, but grew up on NIV.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm finding my NRSV to be be very insightful

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm all about the NKJV

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It used to be better before the inclusive language. I'm not a Protestant though, just trying to be fair.

  7. 5 months ago
    LaFleur

    I still preferred the KJV though

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you a woman?

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    note - tne "NI" stands for "not inspired"
    slack translating and injecting modern politically correct concepts

    RSV is the way

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      RSV is the first translation I ever read, so I have a soft spot for it. But I think RSV2CE is the best edition.
      There's a common family with RSV, NASB, ESV, and NRSV readers, so that's nice too. We can all use slightly different translations, but mostly remain in the same flow.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes CE has 7 moar books

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nay. Other translations are just as readable but more literal. NIV paraphrases things for no good reasons, e.g. translating "YHWH Sabaoth" as "LORD Almighty" instead of the more literal "LORD of hosts/armies"

    The ESV is pretty good aside from their translation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 ("against" instead of "for", reversing the meaning).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The ESV is pretty good aside from their translation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 ("against" instead of "for", reversing the meaning).
      Oh, that bothers me to no end. It was a great translation until 2017 or whenever they updated that. That's why I won't buy new printings. Maybe they'll correct it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it's so strange, apparently it's influenced by a weird form of complimentarian theology that says women and men always struggle against each other. I've never come across that interpretation in any other translation or commentary.

        You can see in earlier editions they have "against" in a footnote, should have left it at that.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, and as a tip: the UK edition has the older text and is still in print, only difference is that it uses British spelling.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a weird form of complimentarian theology that says women and men always struggle against each other.
          Women are sinners just like you and it's a common sin among women to defy their husbands and buck against his authority.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't mean there's any linguistic support for the ESV's translation of Genesis 3:16. Literally nobody else agrees with their translation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just showed you people who agree with it. The concept is not new at all. Your peers as a Christian are not solely your contemporaries but all of your spiritual predecessors as well.

            John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis:

            >For this form of speech, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,” is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.’ As it is declared afterwards, Unto thee shall be his desire, (Genesis 4:7.) Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.

            https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01/calcom01.ix.i.html

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calvin on Gen. 4:7

            >How, then, do these words suit, ‘Unto thee shall be his desire?’ There will, however be no need for long refutation when I shall produce the genuine meaning of the expression. It rather seems to be a reproof, by which God charges the impious man with ingratitude, because he held in contempt the honor of primogeniture. The greater are the divine benefits with which any one of us is adorned, the more does he betray his impiety unless he endeavors earnestly to serve the Author of grace to whom he is under obligation. When Abel was regarded as his brother’s inferior, he was, nevertheless, a diligent worshipper of God. But the firstborn worshipped God negligently and perfunctorily, though he had, by the Divine kindness, arrived at so high a dignity; and, therefore, God enlarges upon his sin, because he had not at least imitated his brother, whom he ought to have surpassed as far in piety as he did in the degree of honor. Moreover, this form of speech is common among the Hebrews, that the desire of the inferior should be towards him to whose will he is subject; thus Moses speaks of the woman, (Genesis 3:16,) that her desire should be to her husband.

            https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01/calcom01.x.i.html

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calvin interprets it totally differently to the ESV per your quote of him. He says the woman will desire her husband as a superior, a complementary relationship. The ESV translates it as her desire being *against* her husband, an antagonistic relationship.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            see

            That being said, the ESV isn't saying exactly the same thing as Calvin or the Geneva. Instead of noting that the women's desire is to be subject to her husband's will, it's saying that her (natural) desires will be contrary to his will. That is more of a corollary to the meaning of subjection. For example she may want to do X but her husband commands Y. Her desire is contrary to his but he is the ruler. It's possible to have her desire in accord with his in many cases, in the case of a pious wife, so I think the ESV goes too far but isn't entirely wrong.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's also why I said it's "closer" to the ESV's rendering. He would certainly disagree with the modern view that it means she will romantically desire her husband.

            And? Calvin's view is still totally different to the ESV.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >totally different
            It is not "totally" different and I explained why.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calvin's view is that the man has authority over the woman. He never says that God described it as an antagonistic relationship where the woman's desire is *contrary* to the man. In Calvin's commentary you quoted, he says the verse is God describing the proper relationship with the woman's desires subject to the husband, as opposed to her rebellion in Eden, it doesn't say that God is saying she will have contrary desires in the post-Eden relationship.

            Literally, the Hebrew says "toward your husband [will be] your desire". Translating it along the lines of "Yet your desire will be for your husband" preserves the meaning and the ambiguity in the Hebrew. The ESV translates the usual Hebrew word for "toward" as "contrary to" which is actually against Calvin's interpretation (that the woman is to have no desires outside of what her husband wishes), and it's not linguistically supported either.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The tragedy of the ESV is it implies the "War of the Sexes" is by design. Even among the redeemed apparently.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He never says that God described it as an antagonistic relationship where the woman's desire is *contrary* to the man.
            And as I said, having your will be subject to someone else's entails a situation in which your natural will is likely to be contrary to that of your superior. But not necessarily, which is why the ESV translation is not ideal. I'm not even defending it, but it's closer to what the verse is getting at.
            >Translating it along the lines of "Yet your desire will be for your husband" preserves the meaning and the ambiguity in the Hebrew.
            It doesn't. The verse has an immediate parallel soon afterwards in Genesis 4:7 which uses the same construction and it uses the construction to indicate submission of one's will to another.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't. The verse has an immediate parallel soon afterwards in Genesis 4:7 which uses the same construction and it uses the construction to indicate submission of one's will to another.
            It's not a parallel. The same word structure is in Song of Songs 7:10 and it's in the positive.
            >I am my beloved’s,
            >And his desire is toward me.
            Susan Foh, as I said above, was the one who pushed this parallel relation to Genesis 4:7, and completely ignored Song of Songs. Making woman only a parallel to Sin itself. It's silly.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not a parallel.
            It is the immediate linguistic parallel. Stretching out to make an analogy with Songs when there is an immediate analogy in the same book several lines later is absurd. The context of Songs however is clearly about love, which does have a mutual aspect of servitude and sacrifice (Eph. 5:25) but this does not abrogate the authority of the husband.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not against the authority of the husband. I'm not an "egalitarian" or whatever Evangelicals call it. The original translation acknowledges the authority of the husband too. But this translation oversteps it and makes the malice of women almost primordial or something. That's way beyond what the text says.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The context of Songs however is clearly about love, which does have a mutual aspect of servitude and sacrifice (Eph. 5:25)
            Yes, love is clearly off the table in a discussion about marriage. The best parallel to a verse about marriage must be a verse about sin and brothers' birth rights instead of a verse about love and marriage.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >love is clearly off the table in a discussion about marriage.
            The verse is about the curse of original sin. Have you read it? It's not talking about the mutual love of husband and wife but of pain and sorrow and subjugation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The verse is about the curse of original sin. Have you read it? It's not talking about the mutual love of husband and wife but of pain and sorrow and subjugation.
            The curses for men and women are in their weaknesses (labor, mortality, childbirth). But the ESV just throws in something from left field about war of the sexes, rather than keeping with the theme of mortality and weakness.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it's not a good translation and it's at least as wrong as all the other ones.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a puzzling and complicated text, for sure. We won't get it solved here. But I think it's better to play it safe and stick with traditional renderings and not to be novel about it. I would say that about a lot of translations: they usually go wrong when they get too novel.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Making woman only a parallel to Sin itself. It's silly.
            The parallel in Genesis 4:7 is not the sin but to Cain's primogeniture over Abel, another subordinate social relationship, see

            [...]
            [...]
            Here's a problem in modern translations you may not know about.

            Gen. 4:6-7 (ESV)
            >The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

            I chose the ESV for the example but every modern translation is similar. Let's check the KJV.

            >And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

            Catch it?

            >sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

            They interpreted that the referent there is not sin but Abel, and the sentence is about Cain's privilege of primogeniture. They thus translated it as his/him rather than its/it.

            From the Geneva Bible (1599):

            >If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: also unto thee his [c]desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him.
            >Footnote [c] The dignity of the firstborn is given to Cain over Abel.

            Now you can argue about which interpretation is correct, but the fact is that modern translations make a deliberate theological choice here and do not even include the alternative in footnotes.

            Also here's the Geneva on Gen. 3:16. The verse mirrors Gen. 4:7 in its language.

            >Unto the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy sorrows, and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be subject to thine husband, and he shall rule over thee.

            This is closer to the ESV's rendering.

            . Modern versions mistranslate both verses.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And as I said, having your will be subject to someone else's entails a situation in which your natural will is likely to be contrary to that of your superior.
            The ESV doesn't imply that at all. It sets it up as combtive, with the woman not wanting what her husband wants but getting overruled anyway. Saying that the ESV gets it better than every other modern translation sounds an awful lot like defending it so I'm responding to your defense of it.

            And the distinction of a contrary "natural will" simply isn't in the text. Submission implying a contrary will is an entirely subjective interpretation, it doesn't imply it to me at all, even including your caveat that

            >It doesn't. The verse has an immediate parallel soon afterwards in Genesis 4:7 which uses the same construction and it uses the construction to indicate submission of one's will to another.
            And? In English "for" can also mean ownership, the modern translations can be interpreted either way.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It sets it up as combative
            Indeed, which is the problem. It's not necessarily going to combative. The translation is poor.
            >In English "for" can also mean ownership
            Saying your desire is "for" someone is naturally read in English as meaning that the someone is the object of your desire. At least the KJV's unnatural language signals that there is some idiomatic meaning. The modern translations lean totally into the erroneous reading and you would have to read some sort of commentary to get any idea that it might mean something different.
            >the modern translations can be interpreted either way.
            Which makes it wrong, because it adds an extraneous possible reading, indeed makes this the most obvious reading to most people, which is incorrect.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's also why I said it's "closer" to the ESV's rendering. He would certainly disagree with the modern view that it means she will romantically desire her husband.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That being said, the ESV isn't saying exactly the same thing as Calvin or the Geneva. Instead of noting that the women's desire is to be subject to her husband's will, it's saying that her (natural) desires will be contrary to his will. That is more of a corollary to the meaning of subjection. For example she may want to do X but her husband commands Y. Her desire is contrary to his but he is the ruler. It's possible to have her desire in accord with his in many cases, in the case of a pious wife, so I think the ESV goes too far but isn't entirely wrong.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And? Calvin's view is still totally different to the ESV.

            It's ideological and reactionary, not linguistic. Evangelicals didn't start teaching this until the 70s when a paper came out (from Susan Foh.. a woman ironically) as a response to feminism. Now they finally were bold enough to taint an otherwise good translation in the body of the text itself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every other modern translation is just as wrong, but in another direction.

            All wrong:
            >[NKJV] Your desire shall be for your husband
            >[NIV] Your desire will be for your husband
            >[NASB] Yet your desire will be for your husband
            >[RSV/NRSV] yet your desire shall be for your husband
            >[CSB] Your desire will be for your husband

            Correct:
            [Geneva] and thy desire shall be subject to thine husband
            [Douay-Rheims] and thou shalt be under thy husband's power
            [KJV] and thy desire shall be to thy husband

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They sound the same to me. What's the big difference between "to thy husband" and "for"?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Desire "for" someone means that the someone is the object of your desire. Desire "to" someone in the idiomatic sense it is used here, means that your desire is given over to the authority of the someone. The KJV rendering just leaves the idiom alone whereas the Geneva and Douay clarify it. The modern translates mistranslate it so that it reads like it's talking about romantic or conjugal desire.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The ESV is pretty good aside from their translation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 ("against" instead of "for", reversing the meaning).
      Oh, that bothers me to no end. It was a great translation until 2017 or whenever they updated that. That's why I won't buy new printings. Maybe they'll correct it.

      Yes it's so strange, apparently it's influenced by a weird form of complimentarian theology that says women and men always struggle against each other. I've never come across that interpretation in any other translation or commentary.

      You can see in earlier editions they have "against" in a footnote, should have left it at that.

      Here's a problem in modern translations you may not know about.

      Gen. 4:6-7 (ESV)
      >The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

      I chose the ESV for the example but every modern translation is similar. Let's check the KJV.

      >And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

      Catch it?

      >sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

      They interpreted that the referent there is not sin but Abel, and the sentence is about Cain's privilege of primogeniture. They thus translated it as his/him rather than its/it.

      From the Geneva Bible (1599):

      >If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: also unto thee his [c]desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him.
      >Footnote [c] The dignity of the firstborn is given to Cain over Abel.

      Now you can argue about which interpretation is correct, but the fact is that modern translations make a deliberate theological choice here and do not even include the alternative in footnotes.

      Also here's the Geneva on Gen. 3:16. The verse mirrors Gen. 4:7 in its language.

      >Unto the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy sorrows, and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be subject to thine husband, and he shall rule over thee.

      This is closer to the ESV's rendering.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also regarding the similarity in language (X's desire it "to" or "toward" Y in some sense) I think that if you understand Gen. 4:7 to be referring to Abel then it means that Gen. 3:16 is not referring to romantic desire of a wife to her husband, but to her role as subordinate.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Knox is better.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What does it say in Acts 8:37 of the NIV? There is your answer

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pfizer.com/refunds

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nay. Get the Knox bible.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What’s so good about it?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's a tradcath larper so his options for translation shilling are limited. Knox is an idiosyncratic and strange translation from the Latin Vulgate and not the original languages. Avoid.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > idiosyncratic
          How so?

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just get a Roman Missal dumb ass.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I need a BIBLE
      >I'm Catholic so I say get something that is NOT A BIBLE instead okay?
      Wow what a shocking post

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    KJV is the only Bible that could be considered Oyisherature. Anything else is a waste of time.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd say all the translations in the Tyndale tradition are beautiful as literature too (starting with KJV, but RSV, RV, ESV, etc).
      Tolkien aslo played the part of stylist in the Jerusalem bible. Still used as the default for Mass in the UK and Ireland, but UK is finally moving to the ESVCE soon.
      I've been wanting an early edition of JB that also had art from Salvador Dali, but they're expensive.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >1 Kings 21:20
    >KJV
    >Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?
    poetry
    >NIV
    >So you have found me, my enemy!
    Sounds like something a boss in Final Fantasy would say.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    i can't speak to its accuracy but i find its language much less compelling than ESV (primary version i use). verses that read beautifully in ESV sound sterile and alien in NIV. not that aesthetics are essential, but you certainly don't LOSE anything by a more beautiful translation

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The beginning of Ecclesiastes in the NIV sounds like a mad scientist rambling or something

      >“Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Rick and Morty version.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lol. Here's some more:

        Good News Bible
        >It is useless, useless, said the Philosopher. Life is useless, all useless

        The Living Bible
        >In my opinion, nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile.

        The Message
        >Smoke, nothing but smoke. [That’s what the Quester says.]
        >There’s nothing to anything—it’s all smoke.

        New Living Translation
        >“Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Vanitas vanitatum, dixit Ecclesiastes; vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Bible

    Nay

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was my first Bible when I became a Christian some years ago. I ultimately discarded it because I preferred the KJV and NKJV, but I'm also fine with the RSV and ESV. I think it's serviceable, but like I said it's not my pick personally.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *