The NIV 2011

[FerventDisciple]

I know this update has drawn a lot of controversy and criticism mainly to do with it's dealings of gender. I never read the NIV84 but in my reading through the NIV2011 New Testament I'm failing to see why theres been so much criticism. The NIV's usage of brothers and sisters is what the ESV puts in it's footnotes. I'm about as far away from liberal as anyone yet I feel many conservatives have been way too hasty in rejecting the NIV2011. I've heard many say they've abandoned this translation yet the NIV continues to occupy the number one spot as the best selling translation so I'm not sure sales have been all that much affected. While it's not my favorite translation it's still one I'll make use of in my studies and I'd have no problem giving it to my children.

What's your thoughts on the NIV2011?

 

[JGiddings]

I haven't read it but I speculate that it's a big to-do by biblical purists and scholars. To me it's no biggie. I do not know if any major doctrines are compromised in it.
The 1984 version is proven to be a good translation (although I like the NLT se better)

Perhaps others who have studied it can provide more insight into this subject.

Has the NIV2011 been advertised as such or was it a more subtle, under the radar type thing; like the ESV changes over the years.

 

[JGiddings]

*double post*

 

[FerventDisciple]

I know they announced it a few years before the update was released but NIV isn't labeled any different other than the copyright page having 2011 in it now. My copy has a new preface with the updates explained, but I own it in a parallel Bible. I presume the updated preface is in regular copies too.

It should be noted that the NLT also contains the same gender language as the NIV2011 yet there seems to be little complaint there.

 

[childofdust]

I think the people who in reality were most affected where those who actually used the 1984 NIV consistently as their main bible - who grew up using it - who memorized verses using it - etc. As people whose faith was most impacted by that version, they probably felt the biggest impact (or feared the biggest impact) by a change. Happens all the time. That's the only reason we have so many KJV-fanatics out there - because they're upset that other versions don't align with what they've grown to know and love as the Bible.

It's all one big pity party IMO. The NIV was never a very good translation (and the KJV is absymal). What the NIV has going for it is how easy it is to read in English and the fact that it is a brand-new translation instead of being based on earlier versions, which allows it to incorporate newer scholarship than a lot of modern versions. And while it may not always come up with a very good rendering, it is sometimes ahead of the game.

For example, in Isaiah 12:2, the strange phrase appears "because my strength and song is Yah YHWH." It wasn't until the last 50 years that scholars realized, based on Ugaritic and other ancient Semitic languages, that the word "song" isn't really the word "song," but is an ancient word meaning "strength" or "might." It's kind of technical, but basically what happened is, over time, two sounds that were similar, fell together in graphic representation. In other words, if you wanted to represent the two similar sounds, you used the same consonant. The problem is that the word "song" is based on the one sound and the word "might" is based on the other sound, with no way to distinguish between them when writing. You have to use context. So scholars realized that this was happening in Isaiah 12:2 - that even though it looked like the word "song," it actually represented the word "might." This was a new realization about the way the language was functioning and it still hasn't made its way into most translations--except for the NET Bible (gives me strength and protects me) and NIV (my strength and my defense). Clearly, the NIV is better than the NET Bible in this rendering, but both of these brand-new translations have learned a few things from advances in scholarship that most other modern translations have not. Almost all translations are stuck with the silliness that YHWH is one's "strength and song."

 

[FerventDisciple]

I think the people who in reality were most affected where those who actually used the 1984 NIV consistently as their main bible - who grew up using it - who memorized verses using it - etc. As people whose faith was most impacted by that version, they probably felt the biggest impact (or feared the biggest impact) by a change. Happens all the time. That's the only reason we have so many KJV-fanatics out there - because they're upset that other versions don't align with what they've grown to know and love as the Bible.

It's all one big pity party IMO. The NIV was never a very good translation (and the KJV is absymal). What the NIV has going for it is how easy it is to read in English and the fact that it is a brand-new translation instead of being based on earlier versions, which allows it to incorporate newer scholarship than a lot of modern versions. And while it may not always come up with a very good rendering, it is sometimes ahead of the game.

For example, in Isaiah 12:2, the strange phrase appears "because my strength and song is Yah YHWH." It wasn't until the last 50 years that scholars realized, based on Ugaritic and other ancient Semitic languages, that the word "song" isn't really the word "song," but is an ancient word meaning "strength" or "might." It's kind of technical, but basically what happened is, over time, two sounds that were similar, fell together in graphic representation. In other words, if you wanted to represent the two similar sounds, you used the same consonant. The problem is that the word "song" is based on the one sound and the word "might" is based on the other sound, with no way to distinguish between them when writing. You have to use context. So scholars realized that this was happening in Isaiah 12:2 - that even though it looked like the word "song," it actually represented the word "might." This was a new realization about the way the language was functioning and it still hasn't made its way into most translations--except for the NET Bible (gives me strength and protects me) and NIV (my strength and my defense). Clearly, the NIV is better than the NET Bible in this rendering, but both of these brand-new translations have learned a few things from advances in scholarship that most other modern translations have not. Almost all translations are stuck with the silliness that YHWH is one's "strength and song."

Interesting, I checked other translations in Isa 12:2 and the only other translation that didn't have song was the NRSV. Even the more recent RSV revision the ESV still has song.

 

[ebia]

CEB has my strength and my shield
NABRE has my strength and my might
Good News has power and strength
Lexham has strength and might

 

[childofdust]

And it's NABRE, Good News, and Lexham for the win!

But, hey, NIV was in the running (which is more than can be said of the woefully outdated scholarship of the KJV).

And then there's my translation (אשׁ מן־השׁמים), which is closest to the meaning of the verse because it recognizes that the two words are functioning emphatically instead of as two different ideas (in technical terms hendiadys): "because my strong power [is] Yah"

 

[FerventDisciple]

How's the Lexham English Bible? Had it free on Logos but never used it.

 

[pshun2404]

I know this update has drawn a lot of controversy and criticism mainly to do with it's dealings of gender. I never read the NIV84 but in my reading through the NIV2011 New Testament I'm failing to see why theres been so much criticism. The NIV's usage of brothers and sisters is what the ESV puts in it's footnotes. I'm about as far away from liberal as anyone yet I feel many conservatives have been way too hasty in rejecting the NIV2011. I've heard many say they've abandoned this translation yet the NIV continues to occupy the number one spot as the best selling translation so I'm not sure sales have been all that much affected. While it's not my favorite translation it's still one I'll make use of in my studies and I'd have no problem giving it to my children.

What's your thoughts on the NIV2011?

It tickles more ears...

 

[graceandpeace]

I own an NIV 2011 & the first Bible I read & studied as a Christian was the NIV 1984.

I have not read all of the 2011 edition, but from what I can gather there are both improvements & set backs in the translation. The biggest improvement is the correction of previous bias involving gender (which also includes gender neutral language), but setbacks were unnecessary changes to some phrases and words used elsewhere.

Ultimately, I've come to prefer the NRSV over the NIV anyway because I think it is a better translation & it includes the deuterocanonical books ( at least in ones I've seen & the one I own).