Why are there no "NIV-Onlyists?"

[Cow Poke]

It's not old enough to have discredited theologies dependent upon its errors.

Check back in 400 years.

[Rushing Jaws]

Because because there is no tradition of identifying the NIV with the Bible. The AV was the "authorised version", so it had advantages over others that were not; so it was able to spread, with British Protestantism, and to become identified with the Bible as no unofficial version could. It was probably helped by the extreme veneration of the Protestant English-speaker for the "Holy Bible, Book Divine", as a book free of even the tiniest flaw of any kind, a book totally Heaven-sent, utterly sacred, infinitely satisfying, supremely adequate to every conceivable need. The Bible functioned as encyclopaedia, history, source of moral guidance, philosophy, everything. It also functioned theologically as form of the Church, sacrament, object of devotion, canon of orthodoxy, source of truth. So it's not difficult to see how some people think the Christian needs the Bible instead of the Church: functionally it's the equivalent of the Virgin Mary. And as the AV was the focus of all this love, to touch it can seem like blasphemy, because every word the Bible speaks, God speaks: the human authors hardly count. And it has a proven track record in feeding souls, in the missions not least.

There is no Handel to adopt the AV text for his oratorios - "Messiah" is world-famous, in great part because a German-born composer of unsurpassed genius used the AV as his basic text. He could do that because the AV was fashioned by men with an ear for language, when English was still plastic enough for forms that would be barbarisms or incomprehensible today to pass as good English. The language today is much plainer and far less rhetorical & less expertly used than it was - anyone modelling his English even on that of a century ago would stick out like a sore thumb.

[thescarsthatfol]

Religion is what I find to be the mass hysteria of the idiots. Also consider opiate of the masses as was once phrased by Karl Marx. People put emphasis on all sorts of weird things and none of them makes sense.

[kiwimac]

You need to put Marx's comment into context.

". . . Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. . ."

[lao tzu]

Check back in 400 years.

And remember to resurrect this thread when you do.

[Cow Poke]

And remember to resurrect this thread when you do.

I believe I'll be long gone by then, so, since you're not here, will you still not be here then? And if the phone still ain't ringing, can I assume it still ain't you?

[mossrose]

My pastor is a NIV-onlyist. Kind of frustrating, since I think it stinks, frankly.

[One Bad Pig]

My pastor is a NIV-onlyist. Kind of frustrating, since I think it stinks, frankly.

It seems to be the most popular translation among Evangelicals. It also seems to be by far the most aggressively promoted, with scads of specialized study/"life application"/etc. bibles.

[Littlejoe]

I own a NIV, also a NASV, ESV, The Message, and a KJV...of all of those, NIV is probably my least favorite, but I carry it alot because it is large print and therefore easy to see...although, I have started carrying my ESV again lately.

[mossrose]

My favourite is the NASB, but have been using the ESV lately, and like it, too.

[Sparko]

Yeah but what about the Joseph Smith translation? That one is supposed to be perfect.

[eudyptes]

I really like the ESV....kind of like the HCSB as a secondary, like the NASB to study with as well

I've noticed lately that the NIV seems to be less prevalent than it had been, at least in the circles that will associate with me.