The NIV—the New International Version of the Bible—is one of the most popular versions around these days. But please read on, as you'll see why exactly this book deserves to be called a transformation rather than translation, to be called a perversion rather than a version, and why it is unworthy to have the title "Holy Bible" bestowed upon it.

First and foremost, the texts from which the NIV was translated cause problems. It was translated from the Majority Text—the original text of the Bible, but all the documents that make it up are dated as later than others such as the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated. The Majority Text has much more support than the Textus Receptus, but the latter is an earlier and more complete version. Unfortunately, the Textus Receptus was kept over the years by the Roman Catholics, and some men named B. Westcott and F. Hort in the late nineteenth century taught that it had been officially edited by such—but these were just rumors and had absolutely no facts to back them up, so the Textus Receptus is still considered complete. It is an earlier and more accurate version than the Majority Text. (information from the Preface to the New King James Version)

Omissions

Behold. What does that word mean to you? Not much, eh? Well, the NIV leaves it out in every instance. True, that word probably isn't going to make the difference between Heaven and Hell for anyone, but still—this is the Holy Word of God. We can't just decide to omit words. We don't have the authority to say what does and doesn't belong in the Bible. That's a sin. And the NIV has taken this word and other interjectory words out and omitted them in a great many places in its text.

Hey, real quick, go get your NIV and open it up to Acts 8:37; read the verse aloud. Silence. My point exactly—the NIV refuses to translate or even transform that verse. More sin. But this is a very important verse that they left out—this is probably one source for the incorrect belief among Baptists that baptism is just an outward sign of an inward change. But this verse indicates that the confession is something completely different than baptism. The Majority Text doesn't have this crucial verse in it, and therefore the men who wrote the NIV omitted it.

But hold on—that is not the only verse they chose to omit. Here is a list of the verses in the New Testament omitted by the NIV:

• Matthew 17:21
• Matthew 18:11
• Matthew 23:14
• Mark 7:16
• Mark 9:44
• Mark 9:46
• Mark 11:26
• Mark 15:28
• Luke 17:36
• Luke 23:17
• John 5:4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:34
• Acts 24:7
• Acts 28:29
• Romans 16:24

Transformations

When you were born, were you in sin from the time you exited the womb? Of course not. The NIV seems to state that you were, according to Psalm 51:5: "Surely I was sinful at birth. . . ." That is, plainly and simply, a mistranslation, or more accurately, a transformation. On the committee that wrote the NIV were some who believe that man was sinful from birth—most likely people who "baptize" babies and all. The verse should read, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. . . ." (NJKV) That is refering to the mother, not the child!

It falsely teaches the viewpoint that men are saved upon hearing in Ephesians 1:13: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth. . . ." The Textus Receptus reads to the effect, "In Whom you also, after having heard the word of truth. . . ." The verse states that we are sealed by the Spirit in Christ with a promise—but that's all we have before baptism—a promise, a sign that we have the chance to redeem our "purchased possession" in Christ (Eph. 1:14).

Acts 2:34 has been screwed up greatly, and this has helped to lead many astray with a false doctrine. It states in the NIV, "For David did not ascend to heaven. . . ." Well, let me break it to you: he did. The NKJV, however, says, "For David did not ascend into the heavens. . . ." Big difference. The NIV's transformation of this scripture indicates that David just died, and the United Church of God takes this verse to mean that there is no Heaven, so their doctrine states that there is no Heaven or Hell, and that the sinful just die, and the righteous are resurrected to live again on Earth—they could scarcely be further from the truth. The Bible says the David did not float into the sky like Jesus did.

But . . .

Don't get me wrong, the NIV is not completely a horrible abomination that should be burned immediately. Some verses are—get this—translated, and not transformed, and in fact, some verses are simply translated better than that in other versions. Take for example, everyone can quote 2 Timothy 2:15, right? "Study to show thyself approved to God. . . ." Yeah. Well, the NIV translates that correctly: "Do your best to present yourself to God. . . ." The original text does not say "study" in a sense as, say, studying for a test or something; it means studying as in an effort for God: striving, working hard, etc.

Well, as you might pick up from the above, I have a strong distaste for the New International Version, and if at all possible, avoid using it, if not for your sake and your salvation, for that of others. The NIV is popular, and the fewer people use it, the less popular it will become. Boycot such transformations, and switch to a translation. I, personally, use the New King James Version. It has its share of troubles, but it is the best I've seen so far. Use that.

Home