Really good indepth review of NIV11. It's positive.
A fair analysis of the new NIV: How the NIV 2011 compares to what was the evangelical standard, the NIV 1984. Negative, Gender-neutral, egalitarian (NLT does not appear to be egalitarian), really should have been called TNIV
- this means that the NIV 2011 is 38.8 percent different than the NIV 1984 and 8 percent different than the TNIV.
Rev 3:20 "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him that person, and he they with me." Not good English: English sinular and pular combined.
- NLT Rev 3:20 "Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends."
- HCSB Rev 3:20 "Listen! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and have dinner with him, and he with Me."
- ESV Rev 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."
- NASB Rev 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."
In 2009, the NIV accounted for 28 percent of Bibles sold in Christian bookstores. That was followed by the King James, at 16 percent.
before it appears in print in March 2011
Shows ALL changes (if you drill down) comparing the words for NIV, TNIV, and NIV 2010! Verse by Verse, Summary of changes
Bible Web App
Will take many years before people update their 1984 NIV Bible.
For the NIV
Grammatical person in English
- I -- first person singular
- You -- Second person singular / plural
- He -- Third person singular, masculine /gender-neutral third person singular
- She -- Third person singular, feminine
- It -- Third person singular, neuter
- We -- First person plural
- They -- Third person plural/gender-neutral third person singular (correctness of this usage disputed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -- one of the leading critics of the TNIV -- is still evaluating the newest version and has not released a statement.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Nov. 1, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- Biblica and Zondervan announced today the online release of the highly anticipated update to the text of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV). The updated text is available for viewing at bothwww.BibleGateway.com and www.Biblica.com along with an overview of the translation methods and approach used by the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). CBT is an independent body of global biblical scholars with sole responsibility for revising and updating the text of the world's most popular modern English Bible.
The release of the text online follows CBT's recent completion of the translation update and is in advance of the March 2011print publication date. Further information on the committee members, the NIV translation philosophy and the research data used during the update process are available on the CBT's website, www.NIV-CBT.org. A new NIV website,www.theNIVBible.com, will also launch today to coincide with the text release. The site features information on the NIV, answers to frequently asked questions, and information on key partners.
we believe the NIV continues to represent the optimum combination of transparency to the original documents and comprehensibility for the broad audience we serve.
The Catholic Prayer Bible (NRSV): Lectio Divina Edition (Paulist, Sept.). Lectio divina is an ancient method of reading scripture prayerfully. The four-step method begins with slow reading of a short Bible passage; reflecting on the meaning; praying in light of the passage; and deciding what to do as a result. Paulist has already sold 5,000 copies.
Not Heb 13.16, Isaiah 40.31, Matthew 11.28-30, 1 John 5.13
Rich's changed verses
- Nahum 3:3 "Look at your troops—they are all weaklings (should be women from here). The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed the bars of your gates."
- Ps 78.4 (not gender)
- 1 Cor 15.58 (but not on part I memorized) brothers --> brothers and sisters
- 1 Cor 9.26 twice man --> someone, man --> boxer
- 1 Cor 927 (not) I beat my body --> I strike a blow to my body
- Romans 1.16-17 (not) many changes
- Isaiah 26.3 him --> those You will keep in perfect peace (him -->those) whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you.
- 1 Cor 5.11 But now I am writing (to) you that you must not associate with anyone who (calls himself a brother --> claims to be a brother or sister) but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. (With such a man do not even eat --> Do not even eat with such people).
- 2 Tim 2.2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable (men --> people) who will also be qualified to teach others.
- Matthew 4.4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man (does --> shall) not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
- Six Keys #5 Witnessing
- 1 Peter 3.18 For Christ (died for sins once for all --> also suffered once for sins), the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ESV, NKJV, NCV, NLT, MSG also say suffered -- aparently due to manuscripts
- Romans 10.9 (That if you confess --> If you declare) with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
- Six Keys #1 Lordship
- No changes
- Rev 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with
him , and he with me.
Most of these issues never had anything to do with complementarian vs. egalitarian debates, let alone”feminist” issues. Rather, these translation choices have to do with how well the biblical writer’s intent is translated into English. These are simply communication issues. I want the biblical message to be clearly heard by all in the manner the original writers would have wanted it to be heard. To me this should not be political or even theological, but should come from a desire to clearly communicate God’s revelation in a different language to a different culture.
Edwin - Just so you know, there are now pages instead of just the previous one you linked to:
The top 500 most changed verses (NIV1984 to NIV2011):
The top 500 most changed verses (TNIV to NIV2011)
There are some statistics on the front page you might like to look at:
Compared to the NIV1984: 19030 verses (61.1%) are the same, and 12055 verses (38.8%) differ.
Compared to the TNIV: 28595 verses (91.9%) are the same, and 2490 verses (8.0%) differ.
Mark - You can see a complete list of the places where it reverts to the NIV1984 (over the TNIV) here:
Along with a complete list of the places where it uses novel text (not found in the TNIV or NIV1984):
Overall it uses the TNIV text over the NIV1984 text in 9736 verses (31.3% of verses). From http://community.logos.com/forums/p/25580/189274.aspx
Dynamic or formal equivalence
There are three main ways to translate a text such as the Bible and each time a publisher sets itself the goal of producing a new version (which is necessary each and every time the Bible is printed in a new language) the decision must be made to produce it one of three way: dynamic equivalence, formal (ie literal) equivalence or paraphrase. http://www.christianfaith.com.au/resources/the-newest-niv
Dynamic equivalence – Translating the thoughts of the sentence, not necessarily each word. Using this method, the translator has decided the text will read better if the basic meaning of the sentence is conveyed accurately even if the literal words cannot be supported in the original. I think it’s fair to say this is the most common form of translation today. The NIV uses this method somewhat, although it is quite a balancing act. This explains why revisions are necessary: the source documents remain the same, but the English language changes.
Formal equivalence – This method tries to render each word accurately regardless of the awkwardness this creates. It should be noted that every English Bible is dynamic in one sense because the structure of Biblical Greek is so different, but a formal equivalent tries not to be swayed by what sounds nice, but sticks to an accurate rendering of each word wherever possible, including making each whole sentence make sense. The ESV stands on this side of the fence, as does the RSV, NASB and AV.
Paraphrase – This third method takes the original thought and turns it into poetry. A paraphrase is like a preacher explaining it in his own words. None of those words may be present in the original, but the reader will easily understand the translator’s view of what the passage means. Obviously you have to trust 100% the translator’s understanding of the passage because with this method, all of the interpretation is done for you. Notable paraphrases include The Living Bible, The Good News Bible, The Contemporary English Version and The Message
Furthermore, ironically but importantly, “that person” has a very cold, impersonal feel in comparison to both “them” and “him.” That is not how we speak when we want to maximize the warmth and intimacy of our relationship with someone in English. “That person” is how we speak about someone we don’t know. The new NIV(2011) is going to struggle with that, regularly. http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/CBMW-Responds-to-New-NIV2011
NIV vs HCSB
NIV better sounding James 1.22
HCSB better sounding
2 Tim 2:2 What did Paul mean? word could be people but he clearly meant men. If Paul did not intend to be gender-inclusive in this text, why obscure the point for English readers?
And to illustrate the dangers of gender neutrality for theology, this is a very useful blog post by Denny Burk. The essay below appeared yesterday on the “Perspectives in Translation” website. It concerns how the Greek word anthrōpois should be translated in 2 Timothy 2:2. Craig Blomberg has argued that it should be rendered as “people” (as it appears in NIV 2011), but I argue that it should be translated as “men.” Here’s how other translations handle the term:
One other thing before moving on to my response. Two prominent egalitarian New Testament scholars agree with me on this translation—I. Howard Marshall and Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson is an unabashed liberal in his view of scripture, but I think his comments on this text are apt:
“The phrase pistois anthrōpois could be translated as ‘faithful people,’ since anthrōpos is inclusive for all humans, in contrast to anēr, which can mean only males. I translate ‘faithful men,’ however, because that is clearly what the text means. In the case of the Pastorals, an attempt to create a gender-inclusive translation only camoflouges the pervasive androcentrism of the composition. For better or for worse, the assumptions of the author’s culture (or place within his culture) should be accepted by the translation. It is the task of hermeneutics to decide what to do about those assumptions” (The First and Second Letters to Timothy, p. 365).
Johnson thinks the text means “men,” even though he goes on to reject its normative significance for modern readers. Of course I disagree with his rejection of biblical authority, but his interpretation is certainly correct. My response to Blomberg is below. http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/12/14/avoid-gender-neutrality-like-the-plague-heres-why/
Reading over the notes and explinations for this current NIV translations “update” I was struck that the emphasis on “clarity” and “modern” usage is leaning the translation further and further in the direction of a paraphrase. ...This desire to make sure things are “more clear” is also behind the translators drive for more “inclusive” language regarding gender. That is, where “man” is used to speak of the human race the translators have attempted to find a term that sounds more inclusive. Again, the change is unwise because it violates the trust for a translator to to accurately translate what was said. A translator should not attempt to modernize a cultural context, or presume to clarify the original author’s point. If the author used the male gender it should be retained, even if he was using it inclusively to speak of both genders. From here .. I have concluded the the “new” NIV is weaker and inferior to the previous 1984 version.
The CBMW critics note that the “remedy” employed by the translation committee still leaves a huge problem in translation, one that pastors and teachers will be forced to deal with as they explain to parishioners that the words “they” and “them” actually refer to singular individuals, not plural. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/5399-niv-bible-update-comes-under-fire
Against the new translation, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has said that it cannot endorse the NIV 2011 because of problematic translations like that of 1 Timothy 2:12. Other strong objections have been leveled against this translation move. Denny Burk of Boyce College fears that "readers may very well conclude that women may exercise authority over men (i.e., serve as pastors) so long as they do not 'assume' that authority independently." And Kevin DeYoung of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, believes that "At worst...the NIV makes it sound like Paul is against the inappropriate assumption of authority, not women-over-men authority in general." http://www.mattoreilly.net/2010/12/is-new-niv-going-liberal.html