What do you think about the NIV (2011)?

[Pathfinder627]

I've always loved the NIV, personally. It has the right balance of accuracy as well translating idioms into modern English without caving into an easily-dated, overly colloquial translation (for example, like the NLT, Good News, or any paraphrase). As you know, the 2011 version carried over some of the inclusive language of the TNIV. But it's probably not fair to call this an "inclusive" version. It's chief concern is what is actually current English usage. It drew upon a corpus (the Bank of English) examining what is actually in English usage or not. So in that sense, it uses a mix of traditional and inclusive language. Sometimes it uses humanity, sometimes it uses mankind. Sometimes it retains male pronouns ("he"), sometimes it uses the plural "they". Do you think that it's a suitable egalitarian translation or that doesn't go far enough?

 

[tampasteve]

I think that it is suitable enough, I prefer the NRSV myself, but that is just a personal preference. My wife has the 2011 NIV.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What do you think about the NIV (2011)?

Never Bothered with it. I've been using the KJV for 70 years, and see no real reason not to continue with it for the rest of my life.

 

[Halbhh]

I've always loved the NIV, personally. It has the right balance of accuracy as well translating idioms into modern English without caving into an easily-dated, overly colloquial translation (for example, like the NLT, Good News, or any paraphrase). As you know, the 2011 version carried over some of the inclusive language of the TNIV. But it's probably not fair to call this an "inclusive" version. It's chief concern is what is actually current English usage. It drew upon a corpus (the Bank of English) examining what is actually in English usage or not. So in that sense, it uses a mix of traditional and inclusive language. Sometimes it uses humanity, sometimes it uses mankind. Sometimes it retains male pronouns ("he"), sometimes it uses the plural "they". Do you think that it's a suitable egalitarian translation or that doesn't go far enough?

It's generally fairly good in wording, great for a first reading for those not having read a book in scripture before, and especially well worded in many old testament passages. It isn't as good overall for a second or later reading in the New Testament as the ESV, though it is still helpful at times for some in diverse groups like bible group studies, where the text is challenging to some, and much more helpful that way than many other translations such as the NRSV for instance. For those already having read much in scripture, the ESV is simply better though in that many times the more word for word translation of the ESV better conveys meaning.

 

[Pathfinder627]

It's generally fairly good in wording, great for a first reading for those not having read a book in scripture before, and especially well worded in many old testament passages. It isn't as good overall for a second or later reading in the New Testament as the ESV, though it is still helpful at times for some in diverse groups like bible group studies, where the text is challenging to some, and much more helpful that way than many other translations such as the NRSV for instance. For those already having read much in scripture, the ESV is simply better though in that many times the more word for word translation of the ESV better conveys meaning.

Well, I was mainly concerned with egalitarianism in this context (since it's the egalitarian forum). I was saved by first reading the RSV in Matthew, so I have a place in my heart for the RSV and the ESV to an extent. But I wouldn't exactly call the ESV translators egalitarian. They don't even have one woman on their committee, and their translation of Genesis 3:16 that caused some controversy when it was updated in 2016 is pretty ridiculous in this whole context of egalitarianism. It's one of those subtle translations that reminds me of the sectarianism in the 1611 KJV at times (not the current 1769 KJV, but the original 1611). Like 1 Corinthians 12:28:

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." [1769]

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps in governments, diversities of tongues." [1611]

"Helps in governments". That little adjustment in 1611 sparked outrage among some scholars at the time, who detected that the Anglicans were trying to inject a complex tradition of "prelacy" in the text ("helps" being all the hangers on and entourage surrounding bishops, typical of Catholics). The Greek has no "in" between helps and governments. It's a dishonest translation, and in 1629, when a later addition of the KJV was printed, they got rid of it.

This is the kind of subtle, dishonest change that the ESV 2016 reminds me of. "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." - Genesis 3:16

There is no "contrary" in the Hebrew. This isn't a word for word translation, that they seem to pride themselves on. But the ESV seems to want to say that women are hardwired or something to be against men, and the only solution is to just rule them.

 

[bekkilyn]

I find that the ESV is a very dishonest translation when it comes to women in scripture and also delves into actual heresies (such as the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father) in its commentary (study version) in order to promote a very anti-woman political agenda. It's translation methods (and yes, by an all-male, all-evangelical team) are very intentionally biased. It's probably one of the least egalitarian versions published today.

The woman issue isn't the only one. The translation has numerous questionable and outright translation errors in order to make sure that it promotes their preferred political leanings and heresies, but it's often subtle and goes unnoticed by those who aren't very watchful to these things or well-versed in study of scripture.

I would never recommend the ESV to anyone, and yes, I'd even recommend sticking to the KJV if such was the alternative since at least the KJV attempted to be honest (overall) for its time and its an excellent translation.

Of course, the issue with the KJV is that English language usage has changed a lot since it was published, so people will misread a lot of passages because they are using today's definitions of words. For example, the words "vain" and "vanity".

My preference is for the NRSV because the translation team is very diverse in many areas and is more focused on scholarship than promoting politics, but I also like and use other versions.

I don't spend a lot of time with the NIV, but I appreciate that the 2011 version did attempt to make corrections to the language usage to make the version more accurate to the original meaning and intent of the passages that conservative evangelicals tend to get hysterical about.

 

[Pathfinder627]

I find that the ESV is a very dishonest translation when it comes to women in scripture and also delves into actual heresies (such as the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father) in its commentary (study version) in order to promote a very anti-woman political agenda. It's translation methods (and yes, by an all-male, all-evangelical team) are very intentionally biased. It's probably one of the least egalitarian versions published today.

The woman issue isn't the only one. The translation has numerous questionable and outright translation errors in order to make sure that it promotes their preferred political leanings and heresies, but it's often subtle and goes unnoticed by those who aren't very watchful to these things or well-versed in study of scripture.

I would never recommend the ESV to anyone, and yes, I'd even recommend sticking to the KJV if such was the alternative since at least the KJV attempted to be honest for its time and its an excellent translation.

Of course, the issue with the KJV is that English language usage has changed a lot since it was published, so people will misread a lot of passages because they are using today's definitions of words. For example, the words "vain" and "vanity".

My preference is for the NRSV because the translation team is very diverse in many areas and is more focused on scholarship than promoting politics, but I also like and use other versions.

I don't spend a lot of time with the NIV, but I appreciate that the 2011 version did attempt to make corrections to the language usage to make the version more accurate to the original meaning and intent of the passages that conservative evangelicals tend to get hysterical about.

Ah yes, the Eternal Subordination thing. I've never read the ESV study bible, but I knew that's where Wayne Grudem stood. It's kind of strange to see Evangelicals reviving one of the oldest heresies in history. "Lets own ourselves in order to own the women!"

 

[bekkilyn]

Ah yes, the Eternal Subordination thing. I've never read the ESV study bible, but I knew that's where Wayne Grudem stood. It's kind of strange to see Evangelicals reviving one of the oldest heresies in history. "Lets own ourselves in order to own the women!"

Most probably don't even realize it's a heresy. People in general aren't very well-educated when it comes to biblical scholarship and church history, and many don't even want to learn because they believe it to be demonic.

 

[Pathfinder627]

Most probably don't even realize it's a heresy. People in general aren't very well-educated when it comes to biblical scholarship and church history, and many don't even want to learn because they believe it to be demonic.

You're being more kind than I am. I can't help but laugh a little at the absurdity. But maybe you're right and it's unintentional.

 

[bekkilyn]

You're being more kind than I am. I can't help but laugh a little at the absurdity. But maybe you're right and it's unintentional.

Well I do TRY to be diplomatic at times.

 

[pescador]

Never Bothered with it. I've been using the KJV for 70 years, and see no real reason not to continue with it for the rest of my life.

Why post this??

 

[Pathfinder627]

Well I do TRY to be diplomatic at times.

It's a good quality. I need to bite my lip sometimes.

 

[Albion]

I've always loved the NIV, personally. It has the right balance of accuracy as well translating idioms into modern English without caving into an easily-dated, overly colloquial translation (for example, like the NLT, Good News, or any paraphrase). As you know, the 2011 version carried over some of the inclusive language of the TNIV. But it's probably not fair to call this an "inclusive" version. It's chief concern is what is actually current English usage. It drew upon a corpus (the Bank of English) examining what is actually in English usage or not. So in that sense, it uses a mix of traditional and inclusive language. Sometimes it uses humanity, sometimes it uses mankind. Sometimes it retains male pronouns ("he"), sometimes it uses the plural "they". Do you think that it's a suitable egalitarian translation or that doesn't go far enough?

Basically, I agree with your views on the NIV. What I have against it, though, is that the translation, reasonable and readable enough as it is, is inelegant. It has sacrificed all the dignity and beauty of the Authorized Version AND SOME OTHERS for the sake of readability.

 

[Pathfinder627]

Basically, I agree with your views on the NIV. What I have against it, though, is that the translation, reasonable and readable enough as it is, is inelegant. It has sacrificed all the dignity and beauty of the Authorized Version AND SOME OTHERS for the sake of readability.

I understand to a point, but it has it's moments:

"How I long for the months gone by,
for the days when God watched over me,
when his lamp shone on my head
and by his light I walked through darkness!" - Job 29:2-3

Plus, I'm a Texan. If any Brits read the NIV, it sounds elegant to me

 

[Albion]

I understand to a point, but it has it's moments:

It does. And probably quite a few of them. But if I am faced with which version to take off the shelf, the NIV is under consideration ONLY if I am looking for a comparison of a modern language version with the more historic ones, whether Catholic or Protestant. Because that is only done for purposes of research, etc. and not for edification, the NIV almost always is passed over by me.

But that's just me; the NIV is not a terribly inaccurate translation like many other "modern language" translations are or one that uses a lot of slang or politically correct jargon like some others.

 

[Pathfinder627]

It does. And probably quite a few of them. But if I am faced with which version to take off the shelf, the NIV is under consideration ONLY if I am looking for a comparison of a modern language version with the more historic ones, whether Catholic or Protestant. Because that is only done for purposes of research, etc. and not for edification, the NIV almost always is passed over by me.

But that's just me; the NIV is not a terribly inaccurate translation like many other "modern language" translations are or one that uses a lot of slang or politically correct jargon like some others.

For me, the two mainstays are the KJV and NIV (but as I said earlier, I started with the RSV. But that is hard to find in print these days, or at least in good editions). And as much as I like the KJV, it probably has more things that bug me about it, to be honest. Little things, and nothing crucial, but they add up. Like calling Pascha "Easter", or translating a serpent as the mythological creature the "cockatrice". Or saying the tabernacle's tent covering's should use "badger" skins (not kosher!). Although to be fair, until 2011, the NIV also had a howler of it's own at this place and translated it as dolphin skins (still not kosher!). One great thing about the KJV though is it's a truly ecumenical translation (without even trying). I can pretty much discuss bible verses with anyone using the KJV. Everyone from Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, all the way to fringe groups like Black Israelites or non-Christians like Rastafarians. I've even noticed that English speaking Russian Orthodox have a KJV Only streak to them. It's so integral to the English language that everyone uses it.

 

[Albion]

I've even noticed that English speaking Russian Orthodox have a KJV Only streak to them. It's so integral to the English language that everyone uses it.

True, true, and although it's not exactly a matter of theology, it's been said that when the KJV ceases to be used there are about a hundred popular expressions that will cause people to begin asking "what does this mean?" and "why do we say this?"

 

[Halbhh]

Well, I was mainly concerned with egalitarianism in this context (since it's the egalitarian forum). I was saved by first reading the RSV in Matthew, so I have a place in my heart for the RSV and the ESV to an extent. But I wouldn't exactly call the ESV translators egalitarian. They don't even have one woman on their committee, and their translation of Genesis 3:16 that caused some controversy when it was updated in 2016 is pretty ridiculous in this whole context of egalitarianism. It's one of those subtle translations that reminds me of the sectarianism in the 1611 KJV at times (not the current 1769 KJV, but the original 1611). Like 1 Corinthians 12:28:

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." [1769]

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps in governments, diversities of tongues." [1611]

"Helps in governments". That little adjustment in 1611 sparked outrage among some scholars at the time, who detected that the Anglicans were trying to inject a complex tradition of "prelacy" in the text ("helps" being all the hangers on and entourage surrounding bishops, typical of Catholics). The Greek has no "in" between helps and governments. It's a dishonest translation, and in 1629, when a later addition of the KJV was printed, they got rid of it.

This is the kind of subtle, dishonest change that the ESV 2016 reminds me of. "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." - Genesis 3:16

There is no "contrary" in the Hebrew. This isn't a word for word translation, that they seem to pride themselves on. But the ESV seems to want to say that women are hardwired or something to be against men, and the only solution is to just rule them.

I think it could definitely help some people in say a bible study group, or someone first reading, before they have heard and gotten the epiphany that of course 'my brother' is definitely both men and women. For instance:

21Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?”
...
35So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Matthew 18 ESV

When the full impact of this overwhelming passage hits someone, they will just know it's that we must forgive others (and of course that's not only men, but clearly all our brothers and sisters). From the force of the message.

But before such life-altering reading moments, for the first time reader, before they know this kind of thing, it can help to first hear various passages mentioning "brother" instead in the correct (intended) general sense of "person" or "brothers and sisters" (just as the passages mean to convey to begin with) -- to first hear it in that helpful wording that makes that clear ahead of time, like the 2011 NIV, so that no one gets momentarily tripped up by a lack of translation clarity there. I agree that in that way the 2011 NIV is better for first time reading, yes.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Why post this??

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED: "What do you think about the NIV (2011)?"

I answered it. Next question??

 

[Pathfinder627]

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED: "What do you think about the NIV (2011)?"

I answered it. Next question??

Well, I like the KJV too, as I said above. But I meant in the context of egalitarianism. That's the forum section we're in, after all.