Is The NIV Removing The Name Of Jesus From The Bible?

23 thoughts on “Is The NIV Removing The Name Of Jesus From The Bible?”

1. Well, here between what is written in kJV, as an example of the Word changed for “meaning” change the “Genesis 2:18” is an example: KJV:

   “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

   This “meet” term in KJV meaning “equated”; for to literally “meet” requires on “the same line as”.

   NIV states “suitable” which can mean a lot of one of many definitions based on perspective of the male gender role diverse in many societies. In the KJV, Genesis 2:18, at minimum is the assumption of “intellectually” equal as well as physically equal.

   For example if I; say a man, for this example, need to lift a heavy furniture piece and a female is set to for a “meet help” she would “meet” the necessary strength to equally assist. As well as meet the intelligence to work in team effort.

   Though these comment focus on term “Jesus”; the “Word is being obscured; and possibly, so as to meet male chauvinist (pig) societies requirement for allowing such translations within its land territory.

   Reply

   • I am not going to address your interpretation of certain English words. However, I will say that the differences between the NIV and the MT exist because we have more manuscripts and better manuscripts to use that were not available when the KJV and it’s precursor (the Bishop’s Bible) we being made.

     If you think the new translations are in error then please point me to the original manuscript where you think it was incorrectly translated.

     There is a reason why not a single accredited seminary recommends the KJV. It’s not because they are all corrupt. It’s because it’s quite obvious to anyone with access to the manuscripts and the original languages that the KJV contains many mistakes and was based on faulty critical editions.

     Reply

     • The NIV manuscripts and papyri used were hidden away and had to be dug up from the dirt. They are a minority of barely 100 if that. This violates the covenant that the LORD made with mankind in Isaiah 59:21, that from the time of Isaiah until for ever that his word would be in the mouth’s of men and their seed and their seed’s seed.
       Hidden away manuscripts in the Vatican library and basement of St. Catherine’s monastery. As well as buried manuscripts and papyri in the dirt were not in man’s mouth’s or their seed’s mouth’s or their seed’s seed mouth either. So they are not God’s word.
       The Majority text has been in the mouth’s of men and his seed from the time that the New Testament was completed as early as from the Syriac Peshitta just to begin with, which by the way has Mark 16:9-20, a full two centuries before the Johann Leonard Hugg dating of Codex B.
       The NIV text is dynamic equivalence (from Eugene Nida) based on man’s idea’s of what God thought and but not what the Holy Ghost authored that was written in scripture. (But Man’s thoughts are not God’s thoughts – Isaiah 55:8).
       You speak of KJV errors but there are none. But since you’re in the error speaking mood here’s one. The NIV errors which proves that hidden away manuscripts in the Vatican and some Greek Monastery in the Egyptian Peninsula and buried in the dirt papyri are garbage. Mark 1:2, The NIV says that’s written in Isaiah but it ain’t. It’s written in Malachi. Oops.
       The Apostles in the 1st century warn folks then. But they wouldn’t listen (2 Corinthians 2:17)
       The Disciples of JESUS CHRIST are warning folks today the same thing. Those Gnostic Corruptions such as in the NIV and other Vatican Supervised Revised Version copies are Garbage.
       The ain’t God’s word and never were God’s word and you know and the Theologians know it ain’t perfect.
       So what in the heck are you doing with an imperfect work when the Holy Ghost tells you in the scriptures he authored that the Law of the LORD is perfect (Psalms 19:7) Tried (Psalms 18:30) The words are certain (Proverbs 22:21). You’re going to have a lot of explaining to do on Judgment day unless you repent.
       The Authorized Holy Bible is the only complete preserved word of God in the English tongue settled in Heaven in our mouth’s today.

       Reply

       • Very rarely do I see such profound displays of ignorance as I find in your comment.

         1. There is no such thing as NIV manuscripts. That’s a joke.
         2. All modern translations make use of ALL available biblical manuscripts, as well as church father quotations, and liturgical works.
         3. Isaiah 59:21 has nothing to do with the biblical manuscripts.
         4. You confused the Majority Text with the Received Text. The KJV used the Received Text for the KJV, not the Majority text.
         5. There are no less than 150 errors in the KJV Bible which I’ve documented myself by reading it in the original languages, something that you never did or else you’d be familiar with some of the more well-known errors.
         6. Mark 1:3 is a direct quote from Isaiah 40:3, even in the KJV. It’s also true that right before he quotes Isaiah, he quotes from Malachi. It’s a combination of two prophets. The reason why modern translations opt for “Isaiah” rather than “prophets” is because all the early texts say “Isaiah”, including church father quotes. The word “prophets” is a change in the manuscript traditions by later scribes because they were uncomfortable with Mark attributing the composite quote to Isaiah alone. Maybe if you get your Ph.D. in textual criticism you can tell the experts that they got it wrong. Until then, you’re just a child on the internet, shouting into the void as your favorite Bible translation is demonstrated to be woefully outdated and in need of corrections.
         7. The Vatican has nothing to do with modern Bible translations.

         There is a reason why we have to learn Greek and Hebrew in seminary and there is a reason why NO accredited seminaries recommend using the KJV. Maybe you should humble yourself and consider that you’re speaking about things that you don’t understand and have no education or expertise in.

         Reply

         • Mark 1:2, not Mark 1:3 genius. In Mark 1:2, The NIV uses Alexandrian (Critical Text) manuscripts which contradict plain truth. Mark 1:2, says “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah…Behold I send my messenger before me”. That’s a contradiction. You’re parroting your professors in their Theological Bible Correctional Institutions and skip to Isaiah 40:3. A fourth grader knows Mark 1:3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3 but Mark 1:2 is not an written Isaiah quote at all. By the Alexandrian Text removing “Prophets” and adding “The Prophet Isaiah” they contradict Isaiah and Malachi. They contradict Isaiah because…”Behold I send my messenger before me” is not written anywhere in the book of Isaiah from Isaiah 1:1 to Isaiah 66:24. They contradict Malachi 3:1 because “Behold I send my messenger before me” is WRITTEN in Malachi but NOT Isaiah, genius. (Advice think and STUDY before you type) because now you are proven to be incompetent by your own reply. Pitiful. Your expertise in education is garbage. Go back to the dean of administration and get a refund. You learned nothing.

         • P.S. You are completely incompetent. You typed, “The Vatican has nothing to do with modern Bible translations.” This is the Proof that the Vatican supervises modern bible translations: On page 45 of the Introduction of the Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graece Aland)
           27th edtion it states: “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following
           an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served for the basis for translations and revisions made
           under their supervision.”
           The Vatican and the United Bible Societies agreement has served for the basis for translations and revisions made. You are so misinformed and incompetent that it is criminal. You better repent and step away from Scripture analysis and Study to be Quiet (1 Thessalonians 4:11) Because you are proving yourself a liar.

2. Well the name of Jesus has been removed in special places I’ve been doing a study on this and it is blowing my mind how corrupt the NIV actually is, a product of westcott and hort, who use the Codex sign Atticus in the vaticanus, to revise the king james, in Isaiah 14:12 in the NIV Lucifer is removed and is called the morning star, in the KJV, Lucifer is called son of the morning, and Revelation 22:16 Jesus refers to himself as the morning Star. And Daniel 3:25 Nebuchadnezzar sees the 4th like a son of the gods, the KJV says like the son of God, Jesus Christ is removed from Colossians 1:2. Matthew 6:33 kjv, seek ye first the kingdom of god, NIV seek first his kingdom, Micah 5:2, from old to everlasting kjv, the NIV says from ancient times which could refer back to the times of the pagans ancient times, loop 233 King James says and Joseph and his mother, NIV says the child’s father implying Jesus is not begotten by God, Matthew 23:9 and call no man your father upon the Earth for one is your father which is in heaven. Westcott and Hortevidently didn’t see that. Romans 1:20 most versions leave out godhead which represents the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. John 1:2 but as many received him to them gave them power to become sons of God the NIV says the right to become sons the Textus Receptus by Erasmus says the authority. I can do this all day I’ve got tons of notes, so they place the name of Jesus where it doesn’t really matter or actually refer to him as begotten or as the essence of God, but in the great manuscripts the word him is actually used. Nice try guys,

   Reply

   • lol oook Chuck. I’ll stop you right there. The NIV is not based on the WH apparatus. It’s based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Apparatuses. The Old Testament is based on the Biblia Hebreica and variant texts from the DSS and the LXX and likely the SP and LV/OL. The Wescott & Hort talking point is a sad old worn out fable.

     Secondly, it’s the Codex Sinaiticus (not sign Atticus) and while Sinaiticus & Vaticanus are both used when compiling any modern Greek NT Apparatus, they are used in unison with all the other available manuscripts. They are give some measure of preference due to their age. But they don’t just automatically trump everything else, like church father quotations from the first 3 centuries.

     Third, no modern bible translation is a modification of the KJV, other than the NKJV. All modern bible translations are translated from scratch by professionals in those languages and biblical studies, many of which I personally. know.

     Fourth, Lucifer is not the name of the devil and should have never been in any English translation. It’s the Latin word for Light Bearer and a nickname for the morning star. It’s affiliation with Satan came a thousand years after the passage was written. Modern English translations are finally translating that Hebrew word into English rather than leaving it Latin.

     Fifth, the book of Daniel literally states “like the son of the gods”. The phrase is in Aramaic Hebrew (אֱלָהִֽיןלְבַר־) and both contain definite articles. The KJV translated as “the son of God” because it sounded more Christian and because it adhered to the rule of monotheism, but that is not what the original language states.

     Sixth, the name of Jesus has nowhere been more removed than the KJV. If you bothered to read the article that you commented on then this would be obvious.

     Seventh, the rest of your complaints are just based on the fact that you PREFER the reading of the KJV and while you’re welcome to read any version you want, just because the KJV and modern translations differ, it doesn’t mean the KJV is the correct reading. You seem to be under the impression that modern English Bibles are referring to the KJV when doing their translations but they are not. When I did my translation work in grad school, I never once looked at a KJV not did I care what it had to say. The original text is translated easily enough in most cases.

     Eighth, I can tell by your post that you don’t know Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. So, I would advise that you go ahead and learn the languages first before you go around telling people that they translated a text wrong.

     Reply

3. Mat 8:31 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mat 9:32 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mat 12:10 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 12:14 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 14:35 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 16:1 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 17:3 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 17:14 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 18:21 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 19:13 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 19:16 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 20:20 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 21:7 NIV added in the name Jesus to the text
   Matt 26:62 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 27:18 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 27:34 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Matt 27:48 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 1:30 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 1:32 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 1:34 NIV added Jesus’s name to the text
   Mark 2:4 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 2:18 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 3:2 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 3:6 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 5:10 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 5:12 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 5:17 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 5:22 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Mark 6:54 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Luke 4:38 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…and they added Jesus and additional time
   John 1:40 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Acts 3:16 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   Acts 13:27 NIV translated hoytos (which means this, these) to Jesus…
   Hebrews 13:15 NIV translated autos (which means himself, he) to Jesus…
   I went through about half the list and caught the pattern. Feel free to check the remaining ones which the NIV also lied on
   The transliteration of Jesus is Iesous not autos
   Thank you for pointing out that the NIV took liberty in changing the text
   Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

   Reply

4. Great work long live the nameJESUS IS SUPREME.

   Reply

5. Adding the name Jesus to the pronoun he is completely unnecessary. The NIV has strategically removed the name Jesus when associated with Lord and Christ. Who is the Lord? Who is the Christ? Satan’s goal from the beginning of time had been to pervert the words of God. We don’t need not one more marketed version advertised to us. Let’s ignore the stark reality that 10 to 15 percent by copyright MUST be changed for someone to profit from their own new version. No room for error? Fearing God’s word is an afterthought obviously. Revelations 22 warns everyone to not even think about taking a single word away or adding a single word or else they will recieve of the plagues written in the book and worse yet from entering into heaven at all!! Holy Jesus but who the heck cares?! People who are pompous enough to market their own latest greatest version could care less for the omnipotence of its author and his stark warning. Most people don’t even take the Bible as literal. People are messing with fire taking ENTIRE verses out of God’s holy Word. ?

   Reply

   • 1) “The NIV has strategically removed the name Jesus when associated with Lord and Christ”
     Not remotely true as I demonstrated in the article. If anyone is removing the name of Jesus it’s the KJV. But in reality nobody is doing any such thing. The difference between “He” and “Jesus” is because we have multiple manuscripts and critical Greek editions to work from and they don’t all agree. Nevertheless, it’s a silly talking point.

     2) “Satan’s goal from the beginning of time had been to pervert the words of God.”
     Eh…. sure I guess. It’s not really in the Bible but one would assume Satan would take pleasure in such a thing.

     3) “We don’t need not one more marketed version advertised to us.”
     I disagree. As we discover more and more manuscripts like those found at the Dead sea (and others) our understanding of the biblical texts change. Therefore it is important that new editions are published to reflect the changes in translation. Do we need so many versions? Probably not. But as long as people keep buying them, people will keep making them.

     4) “Let’s ignore the stark reality that 10 to 15 percent by copyright MUST be changed for someone to profit from their own new version. No room for error?”
     This is a lie. I don’t know where you heard this from but it is patently false.

     5) “Revelations 22 warns everyone to not even think about taking a single word away or adding a single word or else they will recieve of the plagues written in the book and worse yet from entering into heaven at all!!”
     The Bible didn’t exist at the time John wrote those words. More importantly, he said “this scroll” referring to the one he had written, not to the Bible. Go back and read Rev 22. It’s quite clear.

     6) “People who are pompous enough to market their own latest greatest version could care less for the omnipotence of its author and his stark warning.”
     I personally know many Bible translators that worked on the NLT, CEB, NIV 2011, and some others, and I can tell you that they are not pompous at all and they are true believers. They do translation work because trying to make the best translation is always beneficial task.

     7) “Most people don’t even take the Bible as literal.”
     Not sure where you got this information from. Most people take the Bible literal with the exception of Genesis 1-11 which is clearly mythology.

     8) “People are messing with fire taking ENTIRE verses out of God’s holy Word.”
     Except that those verses were never in there to begin with and were erroneously added many centuries after the originals were made.

     Reply

     • I pray JESUS shows you how wrong your point of view is so you are capable of following in the right of the only authorized, most heavily studied and advised, most directly written to the original Hebrew Scriptures KJV Bible. Not corrupted by those copying and twisting Gods pure and holy words. That Jesus allows you to see the real truth of the true Bible. Coming to you in a dream or showing himself to you directly. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

       Reply

       • I’ll stick with the original Greek and Hebrew, thanks.

         Reply

     • Revelation 22 not Revelations. It is the single continuous revelation of Christ as revealed to John.

       Reply

6. The NIV removes approximately 66,000 different things – INCLUDING the Holy Name of Jesus. That is akin to ripping a THIRD of God’s Words – out of the book. Why not try to track down the word “sodomite” in the NIV. You can’t. Because they’ve removed that, as well.

   Reply

   • No they didn’t. Please read the post. The KJV removed Jesus’ name far more than the NIV. The use of Jesus’ name varied greatly in the ancient manuscripts because sometimes the pronoun “he” or “him” was used. In the KJV greek manuscripts the pronoun occurs at a far greater rate than the actual name which is why the NIV uses Jesus’ name way more than the KJV does. Funny how we don’t see conspiracy theorists calling the KJV evil for not using the name of Jesus as much.

     They don’t “remove” anything else for that matter. The KJV is a translation of certain manuscripts. Modern translators prefer better manuscripts that were not available in the 17th century.

     Why should anyone care if the word sodomite was changed to homosexual in the NIV? Please tell me how Sodomite is more understandable as a description than homosexual.

     Reply

7. By your logic then we should be pronouncing Jesus as Yeshua. It’s not whether we use Yahweh or Jehovah, it’s that we use the Father’s name. The first thing Jesus taught us to pray for in the Lord’s prayer was “Our father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name”. Yet most people don’t use it at all. I’m just saying it surprises me that people are uptight about changing reference to Jesus in the Bible to He or Lord, but not the Father’s name Jehovah.

   Reply

   • That’s a good point. I believe the tradition was just adopted by Jewish scribes in the early medieval period.

     On the difference between Jesus and Yeshua, I think it depends on the practice of the first century Christians and Jews. They typically spoke Greek. Some Jews spoke Aramaic but not most. Other still learned traditional Hebrew but usually just rabbis, scribes, and such. Did Jesus pronounce his is name as a Greek speaker or an Aramaic speaker? I’m not sure.

     Reply

8. I think it’s hilarious that people are so up in arms about Jesus name being removed from the Bible, yet they have no issues with the Father’s name, Jehovah, being removed, This is so, even though His name appears over 7,000 times in the original texts. More than any other name including Jesus.

   Reply

   • Ehhhh, I think you might be missing some history about the Hebrew Bible here. Hebrew doesn’t actually have a J or a J sound. God’s name reads YHWH in Hebrew and should be pronounced Yahweh. Jehovah was an old transition of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH+Adonai) that was currently being read in Latin. So Jehovah was a translation from Latin into English of a made up title for God that was used by scribes to avoid mistakenly writing God’s name incorrectly. It was a 6th century invention. But this is also why our old testament reads LORD in all caps. The ALL caps LORD is a modern indicator that the word in the original text was YHWH in Hebrew or the Tetragrammaton in Latin.

     I personally don’t care for the use of this device. However, I don’t think many KJV readers would either if they actually knew what it was.

     Reply
9. Pingback: Is The NIV Purposefully "Removing" Words From The Bible? | Dust Off The Bible
10. Pingback: 5 Mistakes The Prove The King James Version Only People Are Completely Nuts | Dust Off The Bible

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.