Thread: Why is the NIV so popular?

Hello folks,

I'm currently searching for a new church to attend with my wife. Practically every church within a 10 mile radius uses the NIV, which to my limited knowledge is a poor translation. I'm just wondering if anyone knows why they use this version... even the reformed churches use it. I find it quite poor, as it seems that the translators have imposed their own interpretation on the text by adding or subtracting words etc.

WHY?!

Because most modern English readers are either ignorant or lazy (or both) when it comes to speaking and reading their native tongue.

It's a lot easier to read and understand than a lot of other translations. It certainly does impose an interpretation sometimes, but so do all translations. However, the NIV goes a bit farther than some (e.g., NASB, ESV, KJV) and not as far as others (NLT, NCV).

As said above, the NIV is a more natural read than other translations.

I've learned a lot about the translation basis and quality of versions of the Bible here on Puritan Board.

While the King James Version is a literal translation (which is why there are italics words in it, words not clear from the original manuscript), I think it is called formal equivalence.

NIV is a combination word for word and phrase for phrase translation- an attempt to do both translate and catch the sense of a phrase.

My understanding is ESV is "essential literal" and seeks word for word based on the best manuscripts but inputs where words are missing or unclear from the original text.

For what it is worth, I still like the readability of the NIV (early version). It is suitable for Bible study, small groups, family worship, etc.

I use it as a standard of comparison with the King James, though I'm finding I'm using ESV more-and-more. The ESV has had a couple edit revisions that are making it more-and-more an excellent standard.

I'd say it's because we like what we're used to, and over the past 30 years or so many have gotten used to the NIV. I was in high school when the OT/NT came out, and at that time it was truly refreshing. It was a readable translation using contemporary vocabulary and syntax, and for all its faults seemed a serious effort by largely Evangelical scholars to properly translate the Scriptures. We hadn't known anything like that before, and we ate it up.

To many Evangelicals at that time, the NIV stood against empty traditionalism and against liberalism. To use it was to say that the Bible was an active, understandable, daily part of your life.

I think we have better options now, but it took until the ESV came out for me to change back away from the NIV.

Also, I would argue that a more readable translation, like the NIV, still serves limited purposes. I do most of my serious study using the ESV, but sometimes use more fluid, readable translations for teaching children or for more casual reading through the historical books. The Bible is revelation to be studied, yes, but it also is revelation that ought to touch the heart and the imagination. The wealth of translations we have today, if we navigate them carefully, can help serve both purposes.

Does the fact that the NIV is being used as a pulpit bible affect your attending said church?

I think ESV is a much better translation than NIV. It is also easy to read as well. Perhaps the only reason NIV is so popular is because it has been around for so long and is well established everywhere. Give it time and we'll see more of the ESV especially after the release of the ESV study bible.

Because it's a pretty decent piece of work. Reading through Exodus and the minor prophets in the NIV was a wonderful experience for me. I couldn't put it down. The NIV excels more in narrative and poetry than in, say, the epistles because epistolary literature does not welcome free rendering in the way that narrative does. The narrative sections "flow" very nicely in the NIV.

It's not my favorite English translation, but it's decent for church use. In fact, it's great for unchurched (or newly churched) people and for sustained reading. A knowledgeable pastor can always point out any shortcomings in the translation in the course of his preaching.

Because many Americans functionally read at an eighth grade level, if they read at all.

Hi,

I work in a lot of churches, and among protestant, evangelical churches, the NIV is the "standard" bible. None of the others even come close. I suppose the KJV comes in second.

It is also interesting that in both Christian bookstores as well as secular bookstores it is the NIV and KJV which are the most prominent. In fact the Christian bookstores near me mirror the CBA rankings exactly as to how much shelfspace is devoted to the translations. In secular bookstores the NRSV seems fairly popular.

As has been said, the popularity of the translation is because it has now been out for 30 years, has been heavily marketed, and reads with a contemporary voice. Also, Zondervan, produces it in a bewildering number of styles, study bibles, etc. which helps sell the product.

I believe most of the evangelical world likes it now as they are familiar with it. It is probably weakest when it comes to theological arguments, but strong when telling bible stories. Which mirrors most churches these days.

Unless there is a really good reason, I can't see churches dumping the NIV for the ESV or any other translation. In fact from my experience, changing bible versions should be done very, very carefully. In our church, we are on our fourth version in 25 years. Each time there were those who did not like the change. I can't say there was a positive change spiritually took place when the version changed either. I would say bible knowledge in our church is less now than 25 years ago. There are those who view changing bibles like changing one's socks. Need to put on fresh clean ones periodically. I think all it does is devalue scripture.

What may change things in the future is that a revision of the NIV is to come out. If it has a more liberal bias, then I can see some willing to change to something else.

Most important is that whatever version is used, that it is read, obeyed, laid up in our hearts.

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto

P.S. When it comes to the ESV, most of what I see in stores is the ESV Study Bible. Even then it doesn't occupy much shelf space. I wonder if most buyers get their copies directly from Crossway, or buy it on-line. Seems that it is much more popular on this board than generally among bible buyers.

Why? For historical reasons.

In the 60' and 70's evangelical scholars got behind putting together a more conservative translation than the "conjextural emmendation" laded RSV yet not as wooden as the "new" translation coming out at about the same time, the NAS.

It became so popular partly because it was done by inerrantists and was therefore deemed a "safe" Bible. It had as many luminaries pushing it in the 70's in all traditions of evangelicalism (Reformed, Weslyian, Pentecostal, Dispensational) as we have seen Reformed "names" getting behind the ESV in our day.

Also, at the time of the NIV, the "cutting edge" of evangelical/Reformed scholarship was on the side of applying the "new" insights of missiology and dynamic equivalent translation theory to producing a Bible that was both "traditional" and a little bit "dynamic equivalent."

The array of translators hailed from all of the citadels of evangelical power (including Dallas seminary) to such an extent that it arrived with a built-in credibility in the academy where profs promoted it among young seminarians.

Finally, in the pre-NewsCorp ownership days, Zondervan was a gold standard among conservative Christians. Their corporate credibility and marketing acumen was not to be dismissed. They rolled it out expertly, promoted it relentlessly, and practically made it indispensible for the evangelical Christian.

In a word - "readability"

30 years ago the options were: 1. KJV / KJV (traditional text; 2. NASB; and 3. the NIV.

In my own view, the NASB is a great translation of the critical text but it is not as readable as the NIV.

There was no ESV for a choice, hence many churches chose the NIV.

Because Zondervan bought all the shelf space up front in the Christian book stores.

To an extent it might affect where we go. We are both concerned about the effect that listening to a poor translation may have on us over the years... we're also suprised that reformed churches aren't using better translations.

Originally Posted by Bern

Hello folks,

I'm currently searching for a new church to attend with my wife. Practically every church within a 10 mile radius uses the NIV, which to my limited knowledge is a poor translation. I'm just wondering if anyone knows why they use this version... even the reformed churches use it. I find it quite poor, as it seems that the translators have imposed their own interpretation on the text by adding or subtracting words etc.

WHY?!

I don't know if I would classify the NIV as a "poor" translation. It was the first translation that I know of that rendered 2 Tim. 3:16 as "God-breathed." Even the literal KJV (and ultra-literal NASB) rendered that as "Inspired by God" which leads to some confusion regarding the inspiration of Scripture.

I cut my teeth on the NIV. It's still a solid evangelical translation that has served Christianity very well for over 30 years. I now use the ESV, which I do believe is a superior translation because it combines the best of readability and faithfulness to the original. The popularity of the NIV was that it was the first translation that could be read by the masses. The KJV, which served us well for over 400 years was past its prime, and the successors made the Bible less, not more, readable (NASB). The NASB is a fine Bible, but it is more suited for study rather than public reading and devotions.

I think comments by other in this thread regarding laziness being the motivation for the NIV's popularity smack of Reformed elitism and do nothing to further this discussion.

I think we all need to face it, it's futile to resist- we're all inevitably headed toward:

1) ESV
2) some form of amillennialism

(It's not a question of "if", only "when)

It was through reading the NIV that I was led to Christ. It will always have a special place in my mind. As much as I love my ESV Study Bible I do like the flow of the NIV text.
The NIV is not a poor translation. It is the translation of choice for many evangelical and reformed folks.

What are folks thoughts on what is said here?

The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation

The NIV is probably the easiest reading translation out there, especially aloud. It doesn't sound forced in contemporary language like the NLT and others, but not as tough to read aloud like the NASB. (Seriously - I have no problem reading the NASB or NKJV to myself, but I trip over reading it aloud.)

It's about the closest we have to the KJV in terms of audible readablility. Drop the "This is what the LORD says" and "LORD Almighty" instead of hosts, and you've got a better one!

Originally Posted by 21st Century Calvinist

It was through reading the NIV that I was led to Christ. It will always have a special place in my mind. As much as I love my ESV Study Bible I do like the flow of the NIV text.
The NIV is not a poor translation. It is the translation of choice for many evangelical and reformed folks.

And to tag on to your thoughts, there are many other strong Christian men and women who grew up on the NIV. Our former assistant pastor used the NIV in his sermons.

Everyone else here hit the nail on the head; while the NIV may not be the best or most literal translation out there, God has used it to help many believers in their walk with Him. It was a huge help to me as I was coming out of Pentecostalism and moving towards the Reformed faith, and I still use it from time to time alongside my NASB and ESV translations.

Question for the Original Poster: what is it about a church using the NIV that concerns you? Are the churches you've visited Spirit-filled, believing churches?

Bern:

That article seems to be first of all a defense of the KJV. I suspect it went after the NIV and NASB because, in 1995 when the article was written, the NIV and NASB were pretty much the only other strong options in Evangelical Reformed circles.

Some of the criticism sounds valid (and BTW a lot like what I've read from Doug Wilson, who's a KJV proponent). I'd suggest you take great care in selecting a Bible for personal study and consider those arguments, remembering that all translations are imperfect.

But if I may, I'd also like to suggest that you not give in to fear or a critical spirit when it comes to evaluating churches to join. My concern is that you may end up judging churches based on an article you read that was far from gracious in its tone. You will never find a "suitable" church that way. As it turns out, many fine churches use the NIV (even though it isn't what I'd choose) and there are far worse translations they could pick.

Our Church primarily uses the NIV. I really don't understand that but I deal with it.

I don't like the NIV. It sounds strange and very loose to me. I think it is good a an introductory bible for kids, but I don't understnad why it is used by so many churches as the primary text.

I bought my 12 year old son an NIV Study bible to use because I think it will be a good for him. The only other NIV in the house is a small paperback pocket size that I use for cross reference when I'm not on the computer and have access to the internet.

I personally prefer the KJV and am most comfortable with it. I use it for personal study these days. My wife uses the ESV study bible. I have most of the modern translations on the shelf.

I'm going to play from the other side of the table. Since many Americans are products of the dumbed down government schools, isn't the lower reading level of the NIV a perfect match to get them started? As one progresses they can graduate to a higher reading level/more literal translation. Just because you can handle the big words, don't assume everyone in the congregation can. As a former truck stop chaplain I KNOW that everyone can not.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Why? For historical reasons.

In the 60' and 70's evangelical scholars got behind putting together a more conservative translation than the "conjextural emmendation" laded RSV yet not as wooden as the "new" translation coming out at about the same time, the NAS.

It became so popular partly because it was done by inerrantists and was therefore deemed a "safe" Bible. It had as many luminaries pushing it in the 70's in all traditions of evangelicalism (Reformed, Weslyian, Pentecostal, Dispensational) as we have seen Reformed "names" getting behind the ESV in our day.

Also, at the time of the NIV, the "cutting edge" of evangelical/Reformed scholarship was on the side of applying the "new" insights of missiology and dynamic equivalent translation theory to producing a Bible that was both "traditional" and a little bit "dynamic equivalent."

The array of translators hailed from all of the citadels of evangelical power (including Dallas seminary) to such an extent that it arrived with a built-in credibility in the academy where profs promoted it among young seminarians.

Finally, in the pre-NewsCorp ownership days, Zondervan was a gold standard among conservative Christians. Their corporate credibility and marketing acumen was not to be dismissed. They rolled it out expertly, promoted it relentlessly, and practically made it indispensible for the evangelical Christian.

Everyone - Dennis has provided the reason for the dominance of the NIV.

Originally Posted by Bern

What are folks thoughts on what is said here?

The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation

Uh, as someone who has taught and tutored NT Greek, I will just say that the article is more of a rant than a scholarly treatise. Some of the points are heavily debated, and on Matt. 24:30 he's simply wrong.

Readability is a good thing; we need not conclude that people are dumb because they want an easier-to-read Bible. William Tyndale longed for a day when every ploughboy should be able to read the Bible. His translation tried to use language that was accessible to the common man.

But readability is only one factor, and a secondary one at that, accuracy of translation being the MAIN criteria of a good translation.

The NIV is VERY readable, but not as accurate as the KJV or ESV (or NASB, or etc, etc)...

Henry:

Question for the Original Poster: what is it about a church using the NIV that concerns you? Are the churches you've visited Spirit-filled, believing churches?

Its hard to tell if they are spirit filled or not from a couple of visits. There are not many reformed churches where I am, most are arminian charismatic. When I compare the NIV to my KJV (I'm not KJV only btw!) it seems to lose a lot of doctrinal clarity. It feels like a watered down translation... I guess I don't like dynamic equivalence. I'm concerned that if thats the only version used by the church for services and / or bible studies that the teaching may not be as deep as I'd like. The NIV seems a lot more open to more liberal interpretations of certain passages than more literal translations are. I'm not an expert on translations and manuscripts.. far from it in fact, its just a feeling I and my wife both have. (I know I used the word "feeling", isn't that banned in reformed circles? )