While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/60491/16938) and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek. These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like [a few missing verses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13962/niv-hidden-bible-verses) . I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole. I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the _Life Application Study Bible_ from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through. It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators. With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work: 1. Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail? 1. Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light? 1. Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as: * Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology. * Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles. * Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology. * Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history. * Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism. * Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts? 1. Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work? Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review. ¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the _MacArthur Study Bible_ will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages. ² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.

During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV. Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy? Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.

All the Bible websites that I know of have updated their NIV Bibles to the 2011 version. I used to use biblestudytools.com to access the 1984 version, but it now looks like it also has been updated to the 2011 version. Can anyone point me to a site that still hosts the 1984 version? Or perhaps an eBook or other electronic means of accessing it? Whether free or for a price.

> Psalm 139:16 (KJV) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being > unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in > continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. *My understanding of this verse:* God has written down the process of how our bodies will be formed. Thus, referring to ***embryology***. > Psalm 139:16 (NIV) Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days > ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to > be. *My understanding of this verse:* God has written down how many days I should live on this earth. Thus referring to ***predestination***. This translation is very hard to digest for me. How should we interpret this verse? I myself cannot accept the NIV way of translation because that would put God responsible for everything in my life, whether good or bad, and that even my destiny of going to Hell or Heaven is predestined. Some writers like Rick Warren prefer this NIV way of translation. What is the view of Mainstream Christian Denominations on this verse?

Why is Matthew 6:13 different in the NIV that some other translations? NIV (the latest version, I think is 2010) > And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. KJV > And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. I checked the Chinese translation it also has the equivalent of "For yours is the kingdom and power and glory, for ever. Amen." So is the NIV different?

In my NIV Bible I see tiny letters inside the text and references to other passages in the margins. Some of these are tremendously helpful, some seem only to relate by the use of one word. Where do these cross-references come from, did they originate with the authors of the NIV or are they from some older source? On what basis did the creators of this system decide that passage A should be related to passage B? Do we know the intention of the authors for how they should be used?

Take for example Matthew 9:10-13: > While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. > > When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" > > On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." My younger self thought of them as similar to sarcasm quotes, to be read while smugly preening over the blindness of the Pharisees. That seems entirely inappropriate for a Bible translation, though, and the only explanation I can come up with for them being there in the first place is to imply that the Pharisees did not consider themselves sinful, or to imply that Christ's dinner guests were not _really_ sinful after all. And then that old saw that goes "well, we're _all_ sinners" comes tramping into mind... I notice that the NIV 2011 took them out, but have the translators (or anyone else) ever explained why they were there in the first place?

I'm wondering why some passages in the NIV are missing when compared to the KJV, like: - Matthew 17:21 - Matthew 18:11 - Mark 9:44 - Mark 11:26 - Mark 15:28 - Luke 17:36 …and more. Also there are some passages where the NIV deletes some phrases as in Matthew 5:44: > NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you > > KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do > good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use > you, and persecute you I don't understand the need to change the Bible from what it was for so many years; I personally find the old versions really rich in culture and those express much more than the new versions do. Also in the old versions, the points and commas were really important to not change the original meaning. And the Bible teaches that God is the one that gives us revelation through the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures, so there's no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'

What manuscripts did people use to create the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible and the King James Version (KJV)? Are the manuscripts used to fashion the NIV older than those used for the KJV? Are they the same manuscripts? To elaborate more on my question; I basically am interested in knowing what manuscripts or ancient documents were used when authors were putting together the NIV Bible, and when are those documents dated to? To follow on my elaboration above, the same question goes for the KJV Bible. I'm thinking that the question of reliability of version(s) is irrelevant if one was fashioned by older documents than the other. Though I still find major problems with reading things like "thou houth shalteth" in the year 2016. Thanks for your time.

I am reading Psalm 103 and I come to the word "precepts" in these verses in the NIV: > 17 But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those > who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children— > 18 with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts. According to Baptist teachings, what precepts does God require from his children, particularly in reference to this Psalm? Lord's Blessings.

I am wondering to what extent original papyri were used in the translation of the NIV New Testament? I know there are some large papyrus fragments such as p45 and p66 and I am wondering how much the translators of the NIV referenced them directly.

http://biblehub.com/mark/1-41.htm >**New International Version**
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

**New Living Translation**
Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out and touched him. "I am willing," he said. "Be healed!"

**English Standard Version**
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

*(...)*

**King James Bible**
And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

*(...)*

**Jubilee Bible 2000**
And Jesus, having mercy on him, put forth his hand and touched him and said unto him, I will; be thou clean.

*(...)*

**Young's Literal Translation**
And Jesus having been moved with compassion, having stretched forth the hand, touched him, and saith to him, 'I will; be thou cleansed;' Yesterday, we had two guys at a table note that their translations of Mark 1:41 said very different things. One guy said that his translation said that Jesus was "moved with compassion," while the other guy's translation said that Jesus was "indignant." The puzzling thing is that both guys were reading an NIV. The one that said "moved with compassion" was the 1978 version, but the other was an ebook that the guy didn't know how to check the year of but I'm guessing is newer than 1978 since it's an ebook. Looking at the above link, a lot of the translations (including a literal translation) say "compassion," "mercy" or "pity," which are all similar ideas, but only the NIV says Jesus was "indignant." We discussed this for a while and decided it makes more sense for Jesus to feel compassion than anger in this context, considering the way he reacts to similar situations elsewhere. Is there a story behind why modern NIV translations say something completely different from the older ones, and different from all these other translations?

Why does the NIV have 16 missing verses from the Bible? 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. John 5:4 Acts 8:37. Acts 15:34. Acts 24:7. Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24. 1John 5:7 I read from the KJV & I did a side by side to see if what I was told is true. Well, it is. I just want to know why?