The NIV Bible Quiz

One of the most popular Bible translations today is the New International Version, or NIV that came out in 1978 and 1984. Last night, as a family, we sat down with the NIV, the NASB (New American Standard Version) and the KJV (King James Version), and had such a great time taking the following quiz, that I thought it would be profitable to post it here at the blog.

This NIV quiz is designed to help Christians understand the differences between Bible translations as compared with the 400 year old KJV. Print out the following quiz, have an NIV and at least a KJV handy, we also used an NASB, out of curiosity, and involve the whole family. We have three daughters, so each one had a different Bible translation…my husband followed along in his KJV and led our discussion, while I read off the references and asked the questions once everyone was ready to read.

Dr. Rex Cobb, the director of Baptist Bible Translators in Bowie, TX wrote this quiz. You may download it and print it off here:

The NIV Quiz

Don’t have an NIV? You can use one online here at Blue Letter Bible.

Remember, when you take this quiz, your answers must come from the Bible text itself, not from the margins or footnotes. Marginal notes do not have the power and authority of God’s written word, they are only included by editors as extra information, and can be biased. Also, don’t “guess” the answers based on memory, look up each NIV reference given. (My personal favorites are #’s 17 & 24)

Post Script

This quiz is based on the older NIV Bibles, the 1978 and 1984 editions. Have you followed the uproar amongst conservative evangelicals regarding the NIV’s gender neutral “updates” thatKJVBible came out in 2005 and 2011? Where do you think the changes will end?

My pastor is fond of saying, while holding his Bible high, “Life is an open book test, and we have the textbook!” I’m so glad I can trust the authority that I’ve found remaining constant in my KJV Bible!

7 thoughts on “The NIV Bible Quiz”

  1. Thanks for the link, MIn. And you asked for my thoughts so I’ll be candid, as always. I don’t agree with his premise that only the original autographs were inspired. To quote the article’s author,

    Now, the yet-unanswered question remains, which of these two compiled sets of Greek manuscripts more closely reflects the actual inspired autographs? …meaning, the original writings penned by the Apostles and other disciples (like John-Mark and Dr. Luke), under the divine supervision of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when we say we believe that all Scripture enjoys total verbal inerrancy, or complete word-for-word accuracy, we are referring to the long-lost original writings, not fragments of copies (be it Byzantine/TR or Alexandrian), and definitely not any translations based on them, including the venerable KJV.

    He’s saying God only inspired the original autographs, and didn’t perfectly preserve their accuracy through copies. I know most of today’s pastors and seminaries agree with his statement, placing more emphasis on the originals than God Himself ever did. Once His words were copied and delivered by faithful men, wasn’t He able to perfectly preserve His own inspired message to us, throughout the ages? Why wouldn’t He? Surely He had a plan that included retaining the power and inspiration of His words to us, millions of copies later. And likewise, Satan definitely would have come up with a plan to attack and try to destroy God’s word.

    Just a case in point, about the originals and God’s handling of His own originals–In Jeremiah 36, God has Jeremiah destroy an “original” and has him rewrite another “original”. In Jeremiah 51, this “second original” is cast into the Euphrates River as per Jeremiah’s instructions to Seriah. But, there’s a copy of the second original found in chapters 45-51. Original #3?

    And to say that we can’t have an inerrant Bible these days, to me, is blasphemy. Our God says in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The furnace of the earth has purified His words, repeatedly? He shall preserve them…forever!

    And at the end of the article, he blasts at those of us who believe the NKJV departs from the Textus Receptus. Here’s a very long article showing how the NKJV does, exactly that.

    As far as the “inspiration” of God’s word today…here’s how I see it, put simply: Inspiration occurred when God took a blank scroll, or vellum, etc. and used men to write His words. Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them today. Both of these actions are divine and are assured by God as recorded in the verse I shared above, Psalm 12:6-7. His originals are perfect, even though penned by imperfect men. If God could use imperfect men to pen His inspired orignal words, then it follows that God could use sinful men to preserve His words. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give a perfect Bible to certain men like Peter, etc. and not to us? If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible, it is us, nearly 2,000 years separated from a Savior we’ve never seen!

    I believe God is promising in Psalm 12:6-7 to preserve the same words that He inspired.

  2. The NIV “guts” the scripture, not with “miniscule” changes but by removing over 64,500 words, including key words, and 147 whole verses. The newer gender neutral versions of the NIV are even worse.

    In addition to following the wrong manuscripts, another major difference in the NIV is in the method of translating. The NIV is almost entirely based on a method known as “dynamic equivalence” – a sort of “thought-for-thought” translation as opposed to the KJV method of “word-for-word” translating. Dynamic equivalence leaves lots of room for what the Bible forbids: private interpretation. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (II Peter 1:20). This kind of translating is similar to “paraphrasing” and is what the “Living Bible” and some modern updates of it (“The Book”) also do.

    There were two confirmed homosexual/lesbian perverts (and possibly three) that were part of the translating committee that worked on the NIV, influencing the omission of almost all references to sodomy. The gender-neutral updates are the natural outcome of these earlier errors. The term “gender-neutral” means that God is no longer a male gender Person, not a “He” or a “Father” or any of those old-fashioned gender specific terms that emphasize a patriarchal perspective.

    Every new version of the Bible must be significantly different from the KJV in order to obtain a copyright (and therefore royalties). If it is “substantially equivalent” (legal term indicating at least 95% the same) it cannot by law be copyrighted. The fact that Rupert Murdoch is the copyright holder of the NIV might also tell us something about the value and motivation behind the work.

    And consider this verse (KJV):

    “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:19).

    Taking away words (like maybe 64,500+) ends with horrible individual consequences, because God’s words are so important and needed. Of course we would expect this verse to be corrupted in the NIV, and words omitted from it to lessen the consequences, and that is exactly what the translators have done to try to save themselves the prescribed fate. But alas, God’s words will stand forever! Their fate is sealed by the words of the Lord – the very inspired words they sought to corrupt and destroy.

    “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world, He that rejected me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:47-48).

    As for the NKJV, its corruptions are more subtle and sinister. While we could say the NKJV is loosely based on the Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated, this is deliberately misleading. While sounding somewhat like the KJV when read, the NKJV defaults to the Alexandrian manuscripts at hundreds of places to read like the modern versions. Almost any verse that is seen as “controversial” (in doubt) in the KJV is “corrected” to read with the Alexandrian (Roman Catholic) manuscripts.

    The author of the linked article offered by MntheGap tells us of several men who “prefer” this version over that version. He tells us of his opinions and preferences as well, and that he does not side with “extreme” positions, but never offers to name or refute a single “error” of what he can only vilify by calling “extreme.” Typical. If it is extreme to believe all that God said, I do believe every single w-o-r-d. Call me what you will. I stand on the words of the living God who is able to preserve his words and did so as he promised. I have them and can hold them in my hands today, and I am absolutely certain of it:

    “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth: that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:20,21).

  3. I’m so glad you posted additional details. So many people I love, and that have a real heart for the Lord, are deceived by this particular translation. When I was on my verse comparison “rampage” two years ago, Isaiah 14:12 really rammed this whole Satanic agenda home:
    KJV says: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!…”
    NIV says: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn…” The NIV changes “Lucifer” to “morning star”. According to Revelation 22:16, the “morning star” is the Lord Jesus Christ. The NASB does this as well. The New Age religion has long claimed that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers, are they hoping to further that agenda when some unsuspecting NIV reader cross references “morning star” in his studying, and connects these dots?

    Furthermore, same chapter, Isaiah 14:15 the KJV condemns Lucifer to hell, “Yet though shalt be brought down to hell…” while the NIV reads, “But you are brought down to the grave…” There’s a big movement today to deny that hell is real, that people either die as believers and go to heaven, or they die as unbelievers and go to the grave. I believe the modern Bible versions are really perpetuating this myth that there is no literal hell. Well, in comparing the KJV to the NIV when it comes to using the word “hell”, the KJV uses it 31 times in the Old Testament, but in the NIV, the word “hell” occurs ZERO times.

    This issues seems so clear to me.

  4. A missionary friend of mine and his family spent some time on the island of Papau New Guinea working with a native tribal group in the northern highlands. He told us of the irreparable damage done to the gospel of Christ by a well-meaning missionary some years previous who was using “dynamic equivalence” (the same method used to translate the NIV) to translate portions of the Bible into the native tongue.

    Sheep are not native to Papau New Guinea and perhaps have never been, so the people have no ability to visualize a lamb, having never seen one. So, using dynamic equivalence, the missionary attempted to “relate” the concept of a lamb with about the only large mammal on the island – a feral pig – so the people could understand the concept of a sacrifice for sin. But doing so led to a chaos of doctrinal errors, because pigs are “unclean” animals unfit for sacrifice in the Old Testament, and Jesus is not the “hog” of God which takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

    Suddenly a host of contradictions were introduced, because someone with “zeal but not according to knowledge” had tried to make a translation that would “be easier for the people to understand.” Because dynamic equivalence is so subjective in nature, there is the greatest opportunity for doctrinal error. The motive of “making things easier” proved lethal. King David, the man of God, learned this lesson the hard way when he tried to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem by using a more modern method that would be easier and faster. It too was lethal, the result killed one man and stopped progress for a time, until David went back to the scriptures and found his error (based on the false assumption that it would be okay to do it that way), repented, got rid of the modernizing apparatus and went back to doing it God’s way – the only way that proved successful (see II Samuel 6).

    We supplied our missionary friend with many photos of our sheep and lambs, along with a stuffed toy made with real woolen fleece to represent a lamb when he preached. In translating scripture, it is always better to use an unfamiliar word and then explain its meaning, than to change the word itself. The same thing is true in teaching children to memorize scripture when they are young and their vocabulary is limited. Teach them to say the word correctly, and then teach them what it means. Don’t resort to introducing an easier to understand error to try to illustrate God’s truth. “Shall we do evil that good may come? God forbid.”

    The new versions have long advertised their modernized texts with “easier to understand” and “modern vocabulary” accolades. But the scripture condemns the very methodology, since it is the “words” that are inspired and preserved. It is words that make up ideas, concepts, and thoughts. If we alter the words, we alter the concepts. Sort of like falsely assuming that changing or leaving out a few ingredients in a recipe won’t affect the outcome – but it always does!

    Up until about the 1950’s most missionaries on the field signed a specifically written covenant about word-for-word translating as the best method used, and always compared and used the KJV as the basic text for translating. Referencing the Textus Receptus as the basic Greek text was also mentioned for those with Greek language training. The introduction of the Alexandrian (Roman Catholic) texts and modernized translation methods into foreign missionary training has brought corruption into otherwise well-intended works.

    The greatest revivals and missionary outreach endeavors were spawned in history under the use of the KJV and its underlying texts. Part of the fact of why there is growing apostasy in the churches today, is because of the drift away from the KJV to the widespread use of a plurality of modern versions.

    Most wannabe missionaries receive minimal training in Greek and Hebrew languages, and rely heavily on what they were taught in missionary school – training that introduced them to the Alexandrian texts and dynamic equivalence. Their ignorance of the origin and effects of these concepts is taken advantage of by their professors, who were likewise also deceived by others. With well-intentioned zeal these newly ordained missionaries head to the mission field, unknowingly carrying spiritually corrupted texts. Most of them will quit within 3-4 years, return to the U.S. and get a secular job, never returning to the foreign field. While there are many reasons why this is so, one wonders if part of the reason for quitting may be linked to the subtle poison they ignorantly brought with them. Sad. So sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge