Why do some Christians dislike the NIV Bible?

[Aussie Pete]

Unnecessary changes to certain gendered pronouns, chiefly. That's what the TNIV was about. After promoting the NIV for years, they flipped and claimed it was damaging which is insane. It's not the text of the 2011 edit that offends me as much as the decision to change it. It would be one thing if it had been correcting genuine errors or if the English language had changed to the point where the translation was beginning to lead people astray (the KJV is mostly good, but it has done this at times), but neither had really been discovered between 1984 and the early 2000s.

Wokeness creeping into the translation, entirely without justification.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The 1977 edition was very good, although, to my reading anyway, it appears to sometimes deviate from the other versions/translations in order to point out alternate renderings of words and phrases, just because most readers don't study the Greek/Hebrew. And that is what I use it for. I don't like the other editions of the NIV as much because they seem to have gone excessively 'woke' with their neutering of gender.

That is one of the things I do like about the NIV. Unless a verse specifically is about males only using male pronouns is anti-female bias. It was appropriate a long time ago, so anti-female bias in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts is nothing to complain about.

 

[Albion]

That is one of the things I do like about the NIV. Unless a verse specifically is about males only using male pronouns is anti-female bias.

Yeah, when I read "humankind" in some of these modern language translations, I know right away that the rest of the thing is going to take liberties with the Bible's wording in order not to offend one political movement...in a few nations...at the present stage of history.

 

[trophy33]

To me, NIV seems to be easy to read, but is often translated too freely and accomodated to the current culture.

I find NASB or Bereal Literal Bible to be the most useful, being well-made modern translations, but still literal enough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I disagree. It is still common to use a generic 'his' and to not go to the trouble of awkward sounding gender neutrality. Even in English.

 

[Gregorikos]

What was changed in 2011?

It went from being my second favorite translation to my favorite one. They really did a nice job on the gender accuracy. The 84 had some real problems in that area, for instance Romans 12:6-8 makes it appears those gifts are for men only. (I personally know women who were confused by it.)
6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a MAN's gift is prophesying, let HIM use it in proportion to HIS faith.
7 If it is serving, let HIM serve; if it is teaching, let HIM teach;
8 if it is encouraging, let HIM encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let HIM give generously; if it is leadership, let HIM govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let HIM do it cheerfully. (1984)

And the 2011:

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12:6-8 (2011)

Another big issue for me is the translation of the Greek word sarx. The 84 translated that "the sinful nature" throughout Romans 8 and other places. The 2011 more formally translates it, "the flesh".

The ESV had ALREADY made many of the same gender inclusions years before 2011. And now the CSB has followed suit. Don't let anyone pull your leg. The 2011 is the best NIV ever.

 

[Gregorikos]

I disagree. It is still common to use a generic 'his' and to not go to the trouble of awkward sounding gender neutrality. Even in English.

You can disagree if you want, but there was a study commissioned that studied how words are really used. WITHIN THE CHURCH you are right- it is still common to use a generic 'his.' However, outside the church walls that has changed drastically in the last 40 years. People don't much do it anymore.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I disagree. It is still common to use a generic 'his' and to not go to the trouble of awkward sounding gender neutrality. Even in English.

Where have you been during the last 30 years? Very few people exclude women unless they hate them with a passion. Using male pronouns without the female counterparts is only common in normal speech or writing where women have no rights.

 

[Gregorikos]

The ESV also seems more literal and of high quality English. So far I have found no bias although I have only started using it.

The NIV seemed to be a promising translation. I spent years with it. I moved on.

The bias in the ESV has to do with gender. It is really bad about it. The translation team was 100% men. And EVERY possible verse that can go in the complementarian direction does so. And they don't mind breaking their own translation principles to do it.

 

[Albion]

Where have you been during the last 30 years? Very few people exclude women unless they hate them with a passion. .

I'm sorry you are so outraged, and for nothing. What you have written here is incorrect. The great majority of people you see as haters simply think it best to stay with the standards of the language instead of switching from English to Woke-ish (or to any other set of slang terms).

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'm sorry you are so outraged, and for nothing. What you have written here is incorrect. The great majority of people you see as haters simply think it best to stay with the standards of the language instead of switching from English to Woke-ish (or to any other set of slang terms).

When I get mad, there is always a reason for it.

I call actual misogynists haters, not people who pretend men are superior through their uses of language.

 

[returntosender]

Looks like their already doing that.

 

[Albion]

When I get mad, there is always a reason for it.

I call actual misogynists haters, not people who pretend men are superior through their uses of language.

As I read your posts, however, there was no differentiation in your judgments between genuine misogynists and the many people who simply oppose anyone telling them to use ungrammatical language and newly invented jargon instead of the language of the people.

Not when it's the Bible! And, by the way, that's a fundamental principle that was asserted by the Reformation. The language of the people ought to be what's used when it's a matter of religious belief, not Latin or something else like this.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where have you been during the last 30 years? Very few people exclude women unless they hate them with a passion. Using male pronouns without the female counterparts is only common in normal speech or writing where women have no rights.

My point is NOT that women are excluded, but that the generic 'he' still includes women.

 

[Gregorikos]

My point is NOT that women are excluded, but that the generic 'he' still includes women.

You are absolutely correct. However, in an extensive study entitled The Development and Use of Gender Language in Contemporary English –A Corpus Linguistic Analysis done by Collins Dictionaries, they found:

"It is evident that, in all the varieties of English analyzed, plural/neutral pronouns and determiners account for the majority of usages. Diachronically, the pattern is that plural/ neutral pronouns and determiners have become more frequent since 1990; this increase is particularly marked in general and US written English and in Evangelical English. There has been a slight decrease in gender-neutral uses since 2005 in Evangelical English, and a corresponding increase in masculine uses, but gender-neutral pronouns and determiners are still over three times more frequent than masculine ones in current Evangelical English."

The English language has shifted in the last 40 years. In general useage, we don't use the generic "he" with anything near the frequency that we used to. The study found that most of us us a generic plural instead.

This may not be so important for an old codger like me, but for the millenials and Gen Z and maybe even Gen-x it is a very big deal. If we care about reaching the next generations for Christ, we'd better be caring about this.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Looks like they're already doing that.

Who is already doing what?

 

[GodLovesCats]

The English language has shifted in the last 40 years. In general useage, we don't use the generic "he" with anything near the frequency that we used to. The study found that most of us us a generic plural instead.

This may not be so important for an old codger like me, but for the millenials and Gen Z and maybe even Gen-X. it is a very big deal. If we care about reaching the next generations for Christ, we'd better be caring about this.

I am a Gen X woman and have Asperger's syndrome, so it always has been and will be a big deal to me if someone uses he/his to also mean she/her..

 

[coffee4u]

I like the NIV along side of the NKJ and the OKJ but I have the older version, the 1977 version with footnotes. There are a few verses that I think could have been better, but all in all I find it solid and understandable.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I like the NIV along side of the NKJ and the OKJ but I have the older version, the 1977 version with footnotes. There are a few verses that I think could have been better, but all in all I find it solid and understandable.

Mine is a study Bible, so I had no idea footnotes were removed in 1984.

My next Bible will be one with thousands of notes that explain every book, chapter, and verse.

 

[CMDRExorcist]

I really have nothing against the NIV. I just don't really enjoy using it as much as the ESV or CSB. I "grew up" in church using it, so maybe I subconsciously associate it with some bad church memories.