The NIV Is the Best Bible Translation, And So's the NIrV. 

I was asking myself this again this morning!

A lot of Christians have enjoyed the Chronicles of Narnia but a few Christians know that it’s a required reading for, becoming a witch . It has citations in it that summon demons. God says in his word that anyone that wants wisdom to ask for it but if you don’t ask for it you’re going to play the fool.

bUt tHe nIV cALLs jEsUs tHe deViL

RIGHT!

@@markwardonwords Warning: Shocking Reasons You Should Not Use the NIV Bible ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1T0ap2o1eqM.htmlsi=UukgYXmRXMmBP0C6 Please watch this.

Excellent!

Same here. I had never read the bible in big chunks before.

You're so welcome! I obviously had to go through a similar process!

You can't do wrong, my friend. I don't think you can sin merely by choosing any of these options. I think the CSB pretty neatly solves some pastoral problems that might arise over the NIV. I think it's a great option! And I see utility in the formal approach of the ESV, too. Honestly: I might just flip a coin between the NIV and CSB. Or take a vote. That will communicate to others what kind of decision you're making. You're not standing on principle to pick THE ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. You're picking one of any number of good translations-and you're inviting your people to do the same. They might find it useful to bring a different translation to church. No problem.

@@markwardonwords Thanks brother, I appreciate the response and the support. Be blessed!

It’s a worthy love!

I used to strongly prefer formal equivalent translations and even mocked the NIV. Without even reading much of it. And although I still prefer the NASB 2020 and ESV I’ve come to really enjoy the NIV. It’s a truly scholarly translation. I like that it actually makes much more use the DSS and LXX in the OT than most other translations. It’s often much more literal than you’d expect.

NIV is great Great companions include the NKJV, HCSB, Amplified Bible

That last line is so key.

I heard good things about the NLT , I'm getting one .

I was gifted a first edition NLT when it first came out. A number of updates have been made. One thing I noticed a year or two back is that the earlier editions seem to reflect the wording of the Living Bible in more places.

Do you have a video on the NLT ? I like the older versions and very careful with recent updates. I have a copy of several translations and avoid the many crackpot bibles that should not be called bibles . Like the message and the passion and so many more these days 😂

Welcome back!

I'm honored! Thank you!

Both are fine! But, yes, the NIV is superior for most beginners, I'd think.

Awesome! I just love this!

@@markwardonwords The NIV removes many verses from the chapters, Plus the NIV changes words to make it have a different meaning , Plus they cut off many verses and not complete the full verse. I'd stay away from that NIV , There is a chart that tells what the most accurate bible version there or. The NIV is thought for thought. Its very missleading .

@@gregtowle8830 My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.

@@markwardonwords But the KJV 1611 writes God as LORD in all large letters

God doesn't tell you you have to settle. =) I think it's prudent to do so. I do love the ESV. I default to more formal translations for preaching. As you know, I'm not trying to make anyone else's decision for them. If I were a pastor, I would choose differently depending on my sheep.

@@markwardonwords I haven’t been able to settle with one. So I try to use a couple as my main go to bibles and use several others as comparisons. But you are so right in that getting in the habit of comparing translations, looking up words, has enriched my Bible reading.

Interesting. Hadn't noticed that!

A good assessment! I think the ESV/KJV on the one hand and the NLT/GNB on the other have their place, for sure. But the NIV hits a good place in the middle of the road. So does the CSB.

My first Bible was a GNB, the second was an NIV (prior to the 1984 edition). I don't shy away from other translations - each of the ones I have purchased have their place, and each can help shed light on various passages.

Excellent! I went through a similar process years ago!

I love it, too! It's a good gift of God. Not perfect, but good. Very good!

Right!

A great choice!

Interesting. And excellent final line. Here's my take on the Amplified Bible: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n5jYdo8anyw.html

Thank you!

Excellent! I've read a reader's TNIV all the way through and a reader's NIV all the way through; and I've listened all the way through the TNIV Bible Experience. Each was great.

Thank you so much!

You are so welcome!

Riplinger's argument is a classic case of ad hominem. Tischendorf, the man who kicked off the modern critical editions of the New Testament, didn't come across Codex Sinaiticus through occult practices. He came across it in a monastery.

@@glenn1611 I don’t disagree with you but I need more solid proof than that. It was facts and proof that got me into KJVO (although I’ve now learned they were false) and I need to know what I was told is for sure false.

Oliver, I, too, feel comfortable simply saying that Riplinger cannot be trusted. Doubt every last thing she said. Of course, nobody is 100% wrong. I'm sure there's something in her work that's true. But every time I've read a page of her work, I've had that feeling you have, the where-do-I-even-start feeling. If you want to listen to someone responsible on Westcott and Hort, turn to Dan Wallace. www.credocourses.com/product/textual-criticism/ And I've got more recommendations here: byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/

@@markwardonwords thank you for your reply. I’ll look into those resources.

@@AboveGodsName thank you but I have already used the King James Bible exclusively in the past and I’m not interested in switching back. I’ve watched several of Mark Ward’s videos and I agree with him. The King James is a good Bible but there are other versions that are more clear in today’s English.

My pleasure.

Hi Mark , Question, could you suggest a comeback to people who say the Niv is missing scriptures and some of the negativity that is going around , in a simplistic way, if possible? Thank you

@@carpetpro9903 I've got a video on that! Hope this helps! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NAqeYqp0-7o.html

Thanks for watching!

The NLT is valuable! I still hope at some point to do a "The NLT Is the Best Bible Translation" video.

@@markwardonwordsPLEASE DO THAT VIDEO 🙌

All are good choices, useful tools for understanding God's Word!

When will a Bible translation first use one, and where? =)

Wallace is a true scholar.

@@markwardonwords Dr. Wallace is on the Biblica team.

Ah, yes! Those two special languages! There's Hebrewlish, too!

Thanks for watching!

Wow! Really? Very interesting! What kinds of clients? Who do they think their audience is? That's what I'm curious about.

@@markwardonwordsmy largest client is Elegant Themes. Their audience ranges from beginners to advanced WordPress users across the globe. So, for many of their readers, English isn't their first language. Their writer's guidelines are similar to other clients I've written for, such as GoDaddy. It's the same guidelines they give in articles about writing for the web in general.

This is why my writing is often choppy.

So NIrV is the twitter Bible of the Bible translation world.

@@TheJesusNerd40 No 😁, the NIrV (New International Reader's Version) is simply among the easiest to read / understand bible translations, thanks to it being written at a third grade reading level. I am currently reading through it now for the first time, trying to read about 6 pages a day, so far I have stuck to my goal unlike with any other bible translation that I have tried. And it is helping me pick up details that I missed and did not understand in the KJV (King James Version) et cetera, so I definitely recommend giving it a try. You might be surprised, too, it is not just for kids et cetera, and can benefit anyone.

Yeah, I have to call that a cheapshot. =| I've been pushing back against that sentiment (not always delivered as a cheapshot) for a long time.

All of these are reasons to use all good Bible translations! Your thinking is following the same path mine has followed!

@@markwardonwords Comparing the same verse in different translations always helps me understand more , so using more than one translation , in my opinion is the "minimum" for anyone who claims to understand the bible

It's a lot of work and expense, I'll be honest-but it's also fun and a good challenge.

@@markwardonwords I totally get that, glad you’re doing it though, it shows a love for the both the craft of engaging teaching and film making. Well done!

Many thanks!

Share it with your friends! Thank you for the kind word!

;)

Thank you! But I do think it's important to keep The Message in the paraphrase category and not let centrist translations like the NIV come into it. It really is different.

One concern I have is why the NIV translators so often change the text when the original text was easy to read, understand and not archaic. This is just one example I mentioned before because it avoids controversy; NIV removes the word "begotten" in places like John 3:16. I noticed that because I was born and raised on KJV. As far as I found there are no Greek textual variants. The Greek word is monogenes, not monadikos. Clearly Jesus is not the 'only' son of God. Then NIV removes the words "sons of God" in other places. Maybe, so there is no contradiction? The words "sons of God" is the exact translation of the original languages, they are among the easiest words to read and understand, even for 3rd graders, and they're not archaic. It seems God's Holy Spirit wants us to know that God even calls his angels his sons! Why do scholars say it's OK for them to remove all of that since they're scholars? This presents just one or two of countless examples that justify so often disagreeing with mainstream scholars. They need to be careful.

It's a good one!

And do you believe in the deity of Christ? Do you trust in the blood of Christ to save you? I have a reason for asking!

I do. around 25 yrs ago as a new christian I struggled especially with OT 'thees and thous" and got a NIV. It truly helped me. I moved back to KJV and some NKJV. I truly love the Psalms in KJV and have primarily remained in that version with some reading of the "easy to read version". After your message on CSB, I will look at that too and not be 'afraid' to use NIV. Yes, I heard the warnings about it even from the pulpits... I seek Jesus and to know Him better and follow Him only, not man. I love listening to you and thank you@@markwardonwords

Glad it was helpful!

Ha! Love that!

@@markwardonwords :)

Sorry for the quick finger on the carriage return....at any rate there certainly has been some tribalism in my reformed circles around the ESV...not harsh and not in any condemnation of other translations that I have experienced but at a minimum a firm residence there. I am not off-put by the gender accuracy choices...and don't want this to be too long of a post so I will get to the heart of my question...curious for your insight on a passage such as Gal 3:26 where children is rendered instead of sons. It is true, in that culture, that the daughters could not inherit property and I think we can miss some of what Paul is saying correcting the gender use in a case like this. I believe in this case that son meant legal heir...rights not available to the woman...but women are clearly heirs in the gospel and clearly a radical claim in a sense that women are sons of God in like manner....I have really liked the little that I have read of the NIV '11 and would like to continue the joy in using it...but I am wondering about instances like this and if it is too quick to correct. Your thoughts would be appreciated.Thanks. Grace to you. - Andy

Yes, me too!

Hey Dwayne, love your work! 🌹🌹🌹

Very interesting!

A good friend of mine made the same point. I can see that. I need to think about this more. I may be wrong on that point!

An excellent plan. Then, when you get to know the Bible better, come back through and puzzle through the things that appear different in the ESV. Ask yourself why they differ. You'll run into some good Bible study journeys that way.

Very thoughtful and interesting. My daughter is like you, I think. We've just been having discussions about related issues in our home.

A good example of what I mentioned!

No strong preference. I just like more recent paper editions because of superior typography, so that would put me in the 2011 camp. And I see no appreciable difference in memorability.

Thanks for quick response. My main issue is memorability. For years (I'm 45) I've been trying to fully move to the 2011 because of its accuracy. But I have so many verses/passages memorized in the old 84 NIV that it causes me to stick with it. So just confused. Half of me wants to "cut the cord" and the other half does not. Any advice or suggestions?@@markwardonwords

I couple it with the New Living Translation for better understanding. 🙏🕊️🙏

The Blue Letter Bible app is a great resource. ✌️🤠

I agree!

@@markwardonwords I know you do, have a watch of this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wU9lZOddEFw.html

Asking seriously: do you want an answer, or is this a rhetorical question?

There aren't maybe a ton of people in my conservative environs who are defending gender inclusivity. But if Carson can do it… So can I! ;)

@@markwardonwords I just watched this video again. I must say that I admire your compassion for recognizing the merits of using a simplified translations for those with reading difficulties. Thank you for that and God bless.

No, that’s good!

Thank you!

✔

No, I just visited once with my wife and brought my camera gear!

@@glenn1611 I blame the American Bible Society for not making the Good News Bible available in a variety of editions. When I recently purchased some copies for my students in a high school Bible class, I found that the options were quite limited (and essentially nonexistent for anyone who wants a premium Bible.) The translation itself is still one of the best of its kind.

Such an episode is planned!

@@MAMoreno I have a copy of the GNB which has been "Anglicised" and have seen an Australian edition. The copy in my library which includes the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals in a section between Malachi and Matthew is the American text.

Yes! Thank you for doing this!

It's a choice I think more churches ought to make than do. It's a good choice.

@@markwardonwords The Bibles I wanted to get from the Gideon's were the ESV for the church but the pastor said he loved the ESV but he told me he me that his concern was the readability of the ESV. He saw the NIV would be better for the church which as the the Chaplain, I agreed.

@@charlesratcliff2016 if I had to pick though between the NASB and the ESV I would pick the ESV any day of the week. The Gideon's gave me a New Testament in NASB and I found it was a slog in terms of understandability. Maybe I need to give it another chance as that was years ago but I am stuck in my ways a bit. The NIV though is probably the more universal option of translation.

@@BBC600 I have gotten a ESV bible from the Gideons.

@@charlesratcliff2016 Yes, I gathered that. I was just telling of my personal experience. Happy to hear they are handing out the ESV. :-) I have an ESV that I got (my grandma was a Christian book distributor and so she got it for me for my birthday upon request) as the youth pastor suggested it to us as being his personal favourite and the one he would be reading from at the youth group I attended. Mine has a CD-ROM included so I found that attractive too (even though even at that time the technology was obsolete).

Great choice!

I'm happy enough with the Wikipedia definition: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts." I like Louise Perry on this topic-very insightful.

@@markwardonwords Thanks for the reference!

Right!

Amen!

You are very welcome!

Enjoy!

Some translations have more punch than others, the current NLT "hits". I agree with most of the interpretive liberties and such, yeah some people don't like them doing some steering and it sounds bad, but almost everytime I research their efforts I agree. Galatians 5:11 mutilation is funny, stuff about various despots in 1 Kings definitely came out clearer and more braveheart style.... that's worth trading for the finer details sometimes.

Brother, I think I show in this video that I'm open to the argument in your first paragraph. But I'm left wondering if you actually heard what I said. This doesn't seem to be a response to what I said-or am I missing something? I used to follow the argument in your second paragraph, and I think it does have some relevance. In other words, I think the NIV does sometimes draw the line too far toward interpretation. But then I think the ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NASB sometimes draw the line too far toward preserving Hebrew and Greek forms at the cost of intelligibility. So I'm glad I have both kinds of translations. I wouldn't be happy if I had only the one, now that I know I can have both. (I also get the sense that your second paragraph is not an answer to anything I actually said-but please do correct me if I'm wrong!)

I think you want people to call them study guides not bibles, remember the persecution the Catholics and Anglicans used to establish doctrinal tyranny, and God's kingdom wasn't furthered by it. Why not Latin only, why not Aramaic and Koine Greek, how about poors shouldn't have bibles? How do you feel about study bibles and reference bibles, they're not purely the word.... and is the word the books as written by human hands or the message and intent of Almighty God? The word predated bibles....

This is a great question. I don't have a ton of relevant experience. My impression is that your Roman Catholic family has more than enough gospel in those translations, if they will read them, for them to come to saving faith. I don't agree with the NAB(RE)'s note on the key word in the key paragraph on penal substitution, but I still think there's gospel here: "21 But now[g] the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation,[h] through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, 26 through the forbearance of God-to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus." When I have checked Catholic translations, I have generally come to feel that they are responsible, even if they come from a bit of a different perspective.

@@markwardonwords Thank you so much for your answer Mark. God bless you.

Miguel, to be perfectly honest...the NIV is almost identical to the Jesuit bible...most of the passages have been altered or removed all together. Here is an in depth study done by Professor Walter Veith on bible changes you may find interesting and helpful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RqBEuxGY7DI.html

@@rickc.4723 That video is just trying to push the King James Bible as the best English translation, I notice they turned the comments off, probably because the KJV itself has translation errors, owing to the fact that the scholars who translated that version didn't know Greek and Hebrew as well as we do today and they also borrowed heavily from earlier English translations. The scholars who translated the KJV added verses to the Bible that are not present in the original Greek and Hebrew translations, that is why they were removed. The KJV is erroneous, not the other way around. "When comparing the NIV with the King James Version (KJV), it would seem that there are some verses “missing” in the NIV (and other trusted translations such as the CEV, CSB, ESV, GNB, HCSB, NET, NLT, etc.). Actually, that is not the case. In 1611, the translators of the KJV used the best resources available to them at that time. For their day, the King James translation was a monumental achievement. However, one of its shortcomings is that the KJV translation committee of 50 scholars drew heavily on William Tyndale’s New Testament. As much as 80% of Tyndale’s translation is reused in the King James version. Tyndale used several sources in his translation of the Old and New Testaments. For the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Desiderius Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Textus Receptus (“Received Text”). In the years since 1611, many older manuscripts have been discovered and carefully evaluated by scholars. Their conclusion is that the older manuscripts are more reliable. This has given modern translators unprecedented access to manuscripts much closer in time to the original documents. Therefore, translations such as the NIV actually reflect better Bible scholarship than was available in 1611 when the KJV was published. The verses or phrases that appeared in the KJV, but have been “omitted” in most trusted translations today, are not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Modern translators include or reference them in footnotes. These footnotes are intended to help the reader understand that certain perceived differences in the text are due to improved biblical scholarship. The treatment of these verses has not changed recently and reflects a consensus among the majority of Bible scholars. It is important and comforting to note that no doctrines of the Christian faith are affected by differences between the KJV and translations such as the NIV that follow more reliable sources." www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/why-does-the-niv-bible-omit-or-have-missing-verses/ What I do is not rely on any one translation, I use many different ones and can switch between them instantly on my phone to see what the differences are.

@@acurisur I would say it's not pushing the KJV...it is showing historical, and documental facts that the KJV is the closest to the original recieved text in existience. In fact, every bible on earth prior to thec1900 carried the exact same doctrine, with the exception on the Jesuit Bible or the Vulgate. I find it interesting, so many claims are made as to the authenticity and accuracy of the...mostly propigated by Rome who uses the gnostic corrupted texts written by Origen from the occult capitol of the ancient world Alexandria. Funny thing is, facts don't lie...the KJV matches the dead sea scrolls with only a letter difference here and there.

Good question. I do not have a solid opinion off the top of my head; this is not one I've looked into. Just one minor point: the KJV does something similar (?) in Psalm 12:7. It takes "them … him" and turns it into "them … them." My initial hypothesis going into this question would be that that's what the NIV translators have done: they've quietly adjusted the translation to the expectations of English grammar. But I'd have to look at commentaries and grammars to be sure of this hypothesis, or to establish another one. Saving this in my files! Do you have access to any exegetical Hebrew commentaries on Genesis?

Not personally, but I have friends who will have some. I wonder if they'll back my view that the verse provides biblical and theological precedent for the generic masculine 😊.

@@apmcrobert2270 I'm a complementarian-who is skeptical that you're going to get this clearly from that passage. I do think that, even in a less literal translation like the NIV, I'd have said "him" instead of "them" there. But it's such terse language…

​@@markwardonwords, I think many scholars today would be skeptical of what Paul gets from the Creation narrative if it weren't in Scripture 😄. Every jot and tittle 😁 (I guess I should add that I don't base that view on this verse alone).

Glad you enjoyed it!

This is an excellent, excellent point! I've never used G/K numbers, because I haven't needed to. I can go straight to the Hebrew and Greek in Logos. That's why I overlooked this great point!

Fallen people will twist all good things in sinful directions. I have this fear, too. But it takes a terrible effort to twist the Bible like this, “brothers and sisters” or no.

Right! And surely good Christians can disagree on this point!

Love it!

I really haven't. I can't speak with knowledge about the ICB.

Luke, actually other Bibles are keyed to Strong's, too-sort of. It's a bit complicated to explain. In Logos you can look up Hebrew and Greek words from any major English translation. But actually, that word "study" in 2 Tim 2:15. What does it mean? Are you sure you know? I always thought I did, but I was wrong! I encourage you to watch my video on it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nzgmi6I2HIE.html

@@markwardonwords Do you know Mark, that is the first time I looked up the Strongs Concordance definition for the Greek word translated into English word study. I see the point you are making. But I think Paul makes clear about what he means by study he writes in the next chapter. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJVS [14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them ; [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Granted the end target is to be found in Christ at the first resurrection. It requires due diligence to allow the Spirit to grow the fruit of the spirit in you. Symbiosis of both parties. Romans 8:13 KJVS [13] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Mark, you may find some value in my website. Read the first article and see if you want to read on. There may be insight on subject matter for future videos for you. www.justifiedfreely.com I have the Tecarta Bible app with Strong’s p, cost 99 cents. The words are underlined and when you tap on them you can open the Strong’s and Thayer definitions

​@@lukewagner8871, I checked out your site. May the Lord use you to bless his people! Another dictionary you might get is Louw-Nida's NT lexicon.

So glad to see someone else enjoying the NIrV!

Yes, paragraphs! Love 'em!

@@markwardonwords Plus… it is easier to go over scripture context when people grab one verse to justify a ‘new’ revelation.

Excellent! Yes, I do love the NIrV for just the purpose you name!

I don't really think that "they" is trending toward meaning someone who doesn't know his or her own gender-though I totally get why you'd say that, and I, too, am alarmed at the transgender craze and the harm it does especially to the young. I don't think people are actually, unselfconsciously using "they" to mean "someone who doesn't know his own gender." It still feels like a very artificial construct imposed successfully only (I'd guess) in elite, leftist spaces. It's not English. It's a special game played by a tiny sliver of English speakers.

Let me start by saying I hope you are right. I actually don't know all that much about the topic of transgender or its lingo, so you may well be right But I did a little googling for this reply and found out that the alternate definition of "they" as "a non binary person" was added to Webster's dictionary back in 2019. Also, I I know that several of my younger relatives are using "they" to refer to a single and specific non binary person and are 100% on board with the concept. And these are all liberal protestant Christians. It would be interesting to see what kind of study the next NIV update will come up with for pronouns, since the last update was before non binary gender was something most people even knew existed. Now "they" still means "singular generic person previously referenced," exactly as the NIV uses it. But it now also has this new meaning, and I'm wondering if the new meaning will ever start impacting how clearly people understand the use of "they" in the NIV. I can't imagine anyone would think the Bible is making statements only about a non binary person, but who knows? I guess that is exactly why bible translation updates will forever be needed.

No time to really dig right now; my impression is that those who go with that reading are using the "harder reading" principle.

@@markwardonwords It shows lack of judgment.

My Spanish isn't as good as my English, but I had the NVI for years until I lost it somehow. I remember liking it!