[Cronos]

Sentinel: The NIV is not based on the Translations from original Greek, but the Roman Catholic approved translations.

Ha ha -- a simple check up even on wikipedia shows this:

The NIV is an explicitly Protestant translation. The deuterocanonical books are not included in the translation. It preserved traditional Evangelical theology on many contested points ... Apart from these theological issues, the manuscript base of the NIV is similar to the RSV, using older Greek New Testament texts rather than the later Textus Receptus.

The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more

The text used for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The text used in translating the New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

What know-nothings can't get their minds around is that the NIV (which is much more accurate to the ORIGINAL Greek and Aramaic) seems to them similar to the Douay-Rheims.

it's not because the NIV was based on the D-R, but rather that the D-R is correct and the NIV re-invented the wheel and ended up with the same thing -- based on the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts!

[aruanan]

What know-nothings can't get their minds around is that the NIV (which is much more accurate to the ORIGINAL Greek and Aramaic) seems to them similar to the Douay-Rheims.

it's not because the NIV was based on the D-R, but rather that the D-R is correct and the NIV re-invented the wheel and ended up with the same thing -- based on the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts!

You still didn't demonstrate the original assertion: The NIV is not based on the Translations from original Greek, but the Roman Catholic approved translations.

What you posted from wikipedia doesn't even allude to something like this.

[aruanan]

Furthermore, if we wanted a translation of the OT that was commonly used up to and including the time of Jesus, we would have a translation from the Septuagint, not from the Masoretic text. When Jesus was quoting the OT, he was quoting the Septuagint. Because new Jewish Christians were so adept at using the Septuagint to proselytize, Jewish leaders abandoned it and adopted the Hebrew OT.

And the older Greek NT texts were much better than the so-called Textus Receptus, which was, in part, invented by translating the Vulgate back into Greek, creating words that did not appear in koine Greek. In fact, the phrase "textus receptus" was an advertising blurb for a Greek NT that was hastily cobbled together out of late miniscule manuscripts, parts of the Vulgate, whatever Erasmus could get his hands on as quickly as he could to beat others to publication. The so-called "textus receptus" did not exist before it was crafted by Erasmus. It went on to underlie many different translations into other languages which is why, for example, the standard Spanish translation, the Reina-Valera, was so close to the KJV in the NT--both came from Erasmus's creation.