# New NIV Available Today at BibleGateway



## TomVols (Oct 21, 2010)

*New NIV available Nov 1 Online*

The much anticipated revision of the NIV will be available online Nov. 1. However, print editions will not be available until March 2011.

Updated NIV Text Available for Online Viewing November 1 « NIV Bible Update


----------



## bookslover (Oct 21, 2010)

Will it be even worse than the TNIV (the result of the last time they tweaked it)? Stay tuned...


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 21, 2010)

Ooh, just what we needed -- another Bible translation! 

You'd think an article about the release of a new translation would say something about the translation philosophy, but there is no mention at all.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 21, 2010)

The press release (NIV Bible Update) says:



> As time passes and English changes, the NIV we have at present is becoming increasingly dated.



The NIV we have at present dates to 1984. Following this logic, every generation of children would need to be taught a different Bible than its parents.


----------



## SolaGratia (Oct 21, 2010)

Aren’t you just doing this because NIV sales are in decline?

We are doing this because we are being true to the NIV Charter. If this results in selling more Bibles, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? We believe this book is God’s word and we want to reach as many people with it as possible.

Link: Aren


----------



## Edward (Oct 21, 2010)

SolaGratia said:


> true to the NIV Charter



I'm usually pretty good with online searching, but I'm having trouble coming up with the 'NIV Charter'. Anyone have a link? I'd be interested to see if it has any of the usual buzzwords of the theological liberals.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 21, 2010)

I think you're looking for this:



> How can we read the original charter which was given to the CBT for the NIV?
> COMMITTEE ON BIBLE TRANSLATION CONSTITUTION
> ARTICLE I – Name
> 
> ...



How can we read the original charter which was given to the CBT for the NIV? « NIV Bible Update

That list in the previous post can't be complete; isn't Dr. Bill Mounce supposed to be on the committee?


----------



## Edward (Oct 21, 2010)

austinww said:


> I think you're looking for this:



Thanks, but I'm not sure if that is what I'm looking for, or not. It is qualified as the 'original charter'. Is there then a current charter? Is that the charter under which the TNIV was drafted? (If so, we know that subscription is, at best, loose). Or is there a newer document which grants more liberty? (And I'm not expecting you to do my research for me, I'm just articulating my questions.) 

Their comment here Gender « NIV Bible Update may really tell me all that I need to know: "To the extent, therefore, that gender inclusive language is an established part of contemporary English and that its use enhances comprehension for readers, it will be an important factor in the decisions made by the translators."


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 21, 2010)

Edward said:


> Is that the charter under which the TNIV was drafted? (If so, we know that subscription is, at best, loose). Or is there a newer document which grants more liberty?


 
What about the original charter would prevent them from translating with gender-neutral language?


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm actually really looking forward to reading this update to the NIV.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 22, 2010)

The news will be what they do on the gender-inclusive issue. They got a lot of backlash on the TNIV from their base among evangelical readers. I can't imagine they want to go further than that version in being gender inclusive. But clearly gender issues are where the main changes will come. It'll be interesting to see both what they've decided and how they defend it, since it's inevitable that marketing will play some role, no matter how much the translators may try to avoid it.


----------



## JM (Oct 22, 2010)

Was the old NIV _really_ outdated...already?


----------



## KSon (Oct 22, 2010)

At the beginning of the process, I would love to hear the answer to this question:

"Would you continue in your plan to publish this new 'needed' translation if you knew you were not going to make a profit."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2010)

As we have seen ad nauseum from the ESV "marketing" is central to the sales of Bibles.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 22, 2010)

Perhaps, and hopefully, the gender inclusiven language issue will be the death knell of the NIV.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 22, 2010)

KSon said:


> At the beginning of the process, I would love to hear the answer to this question:
> 
> "Would you continue in your plan to publish this new 'needed' translation if you knew you were not going to make a profit."


 
The charter actually binds the committee to update it every so often indefinitely.


----------



## KSon (Oct 22, 2010)

And that may very well be, Austin, but again my question would stand with a qualifier, "Why now?". Would it have anything at all to do with the fact that many NIV pulpits have been overtaken by ESV pulpits? I know that CBA numbers indicate the NIV is still tops in units and dollars, but almost every time I listen to a sermon via sermonaudio, or see an in-article Scripture pop-up, it always seems to be ESV. 

Pardon me if I come across as cynical. Given the big dollars at stake in "Christian" publishing, I am just wary of the motives behind the what seems to be annual "new" or "updated" Bible translation that hits the market.


----------



## Edward (Oct 22, 2010)

austinww said:


> What about the original charter would prevent them from translating with gender-neutral language?



Good point. They have to affirm the inerrancy of scripture in the original autographs. They don't seem to have to affirm that their 'translation' will be true to the original.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 22, 2010)

No offense, NIV loving brethren, but since the NKJV, ESV and HCSB I have felt no need for new English translations. If I want a majority text translation, there is the KJV and NKJV. If my desire is for a critical text basis, it is VERY hard to beat the ESV and HCSB. The HCSB is greatly underappreciated by conservatives. It is a strikingly "fresh" and robust translation that conveys the literal sense in very contemporary English phrasing. I especially like the rendering of contractions in direct discourse. "Let us go" does not sound like speech; "let's go" does and renders the Greek with equal literalness.

But, with the ESV Study Bible and (now) the MacArthur ESV Study Bible, who needs a new Bible?


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 22, 2010)

Edward said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > What about the original charter would prevent them from translating with gender-neutral language?
> ...


 
From reading their material, I get the impression they believe gender-neutral language _is_ faithful to the original.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 22, 2010)

Leland Ryken noted that when dynamic equivalent proponents speak of its superiority, they usually refer to the original NIV, the most conservative of all the DE translations. It's like deep down they know that essentially literal is actually best.


----------



## SolaGratia (Oct 22, 2010)

According to the CBA montly sales rankings, the NIV is on top of bible translation sales.

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 23, 2010)

No samples or releases along the way like most other translations have done. Methinks they're afraid of the TNIV criticism and don't want peer review and the light of scrutiny to cloud their misjudgement. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm expecting TNIV-Lite.


----------



## Edward (Oct 23, 2010)

SolaGratia said:


> According to the CBA montly sales rankings, the NIV is on top of bible translation sales.



So they are saying that the KJV, with no royalties or copyright, has a higher average sales price than a NKJV? That's a little counterintuitive.


----------



## TomVols (Oct 23, 2010)

I know I'm going to be crucified for saying this, but I welcome the new NIV. I, too will be disppointed if they just erased the "t" off of the TNIV. But the NIV needed an overhaul.

And I'll go further: despite my love of the ESV, it badly needs an overhaul. It's way too tied to the old RSV. It's all fine and good that we avoid the theological pitfalls of some translations, as represented in the ESV. And we should be gender accurate and not bow to the whims of culture. That said, why use a word that's 100 years old when we can use a modern word and be just as literal? If it's not understandable, it's not accurate. Accuracy demands faithfulness to the wording of the original and the language of the receptor. 

So, I firmly believe the ESV folks should stop with the little bitty revisions and do a remake. There is still room between the NASB and the NIV that the ESV has failed to claim. A solid revision would do this.


----------



## KMK (Oct 23, 2010)

TomVols said:


> There is still room between the NASB and the NIV that the ESV has failed to claim. A solid revision would do this.


 
What does this mean?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 23, 2010)

TomVols said:


> I know I'm going to be crucified for saying this, but I welcome the new NIV. I, too will be disppointed if they just erased the "t" off of the TNIV. But the NIV needed an overhaul.



I'm with you. I think a few changes to the '84 NIV would substantially improve the translation, e.g. drop the insipid "this is what the Lord says" for "Thus says the Lord", translate "flesh" as "flesh" and footnote the interpretation, etc. Even the TNIV got a few things right. If they do this, I'd be pleased. I hope my doubt is for naught.


----------



## TomVols (Oct 23, 2010)

KMK said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> > There is still room between the NASB and the NIV that the ESV has failed to claim. A solid revision would do this.
> ...


 
The NIV can be far too free. The NASB can at times be stilted and a bit more wooden than required by the text of the mss. So there's room between the two. There's nothing wrong with being understandable and literal. The two are not opposites or enemies. Why do so many think they are?

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------




PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'm going to be crucified for saying this, but I welcome the new NIV. I, too will be disppointed if they just erased the "t" off of the TNIV. But the NIV needed an overhaul.
> ...


 The horrible rendering of 1 Cor 7:1 is but one that comes to mind.


----------



## ClayPot (Nov 1, 2010)

Following this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/new-niv-available-nov-1-online-63879/

the new NIV translation is available on BibleGateway. The NIV "1984" and TNIV are not longer possible selections.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 1, 2010)

At first glance, admittedly looking at only a handful of obvious passages, it definately seems to be much more gender-inclusive. Some examples:



> Galatians 3:26
> 
> Old NIV: You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> ...



Observations: 

In one case (Galatians 3:26) the word order of the New NIV seems to more closely follow the Greek though the word choice does not. In another case (1 Timothy 3:8) the word order in the New NIV follows the Greek less but the word choice is closer to the original. The common difference is that in all cases the New NIV is more gender-inclusive. 

From a writer's perspective alone, it looks like there was a very strong determination to be gender-inclusive, even to the point of awkwardness in sentence construction (notice Psalm 1, 2 Corinthians 5:17).

I find Acts 6:3 particularly interesting. The translators added the words "and sisters," which could affect how the church views voting membership. But they refrained from adding to "men," which could have had an affect on how the church views the much more controversial issue of church officers. Maybe political considerations had nothing to do with it, but I still would like to know why the translators felt the one addition to the text is warranted while the other is not.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 1, 2010)

What about the infamous TNIV change of "Jews" to "Jewish leaders"?


----------



## TomVols (Nov 1, 2010)

A very quick look lends me to tentatively believe that the new NIV is an improvement over the TNIV and the NIV in spots. 1 Tim 3:2 and 3:8 come to mind. The latter is particularly so (ne NIV's "the women" as opposed to "their wives"). On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with 1 Cor 7:2 in the new NIV ("have sexual relations"), or 2 Tim 3:17's "servant of God" vs "man of God." The jury is still out for me. I need to look at it further. I've only scannned about 20-30 passages right now.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 4, 2010)

Hey Everyone!



> On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with 1 Cor 7:2 in the new NIV ("have sexual relations")



I actually prefer that translation. The Greek term _echo_ can have a sexual connotation to it, both in the LXX as well as the NT. Gordon Fee has pointed out Exodus 2:1, Deuteronomy 28:30, and Isaiah 13:16 in the LXX, as well as Mark 6:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 as examples.

Furthermore, it seems to fit the context better. verses 2-4 seem to all be chiastic in character:

2. ...man...wife...woman...husband.
3. ...husband...wife...wife...husband
4. ...wife...husband...husband...wife

Hence, they are probably a unit. Also the proceeding context is about husbands and wives, and hence, it fits the proceeding topic as well. In fact, the New NIV is not the first translation to translate it this way. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace's main involvement in translation is with the New English Translation availible here. It reads:



> But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband.



The note on that reads:



> Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).



There is also the problem that Fee points out about echo having to connotation of "to marry." I have confirmed this in tracking the verbs through my reading. The normal term used for marriage is lambano, and usually lying behind it, the Hebrew term laqach. It also doesn't make sense contextually, as, when he gets to the discussion on virgins in verses 25ff, he tells them to remain as they are. Hence, I would say that the New NIV and the NET Bible have actually translated the passage closer to its meaning.

Hence, I am actually happy about that translation.

However, the gender neutral language is _not_ something I am happy about. The only argument I have heard in favor of it is that the generic masculine has fallen out of usage. I have not yet been convinced of that. Not only that, but I have suspected that one of the reasons one could argue for the claim that it has fallen out of usage is because of political correctness, which is something I want to fight against, not submit to.

I will have to check out some of the other passages to see what I think. Anyway, thanks for the link!

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Bethel (Nov 4, 2010)

I found this New NIV comparison chart on Challies.com: NIV2011/NIV2010 Changes

I was surprised to see that over 30% of the New NIV is the same as the TNIV; didn't they get the message that no one liked the TNIV?

Blessings,


----------



## Jack K (Nov 4, 2010)

For years I've used the 1984 NIV almost exclusively when I teach kids. The reason is because (1) kids can generally follow and understand it even if they're completely unfamiliar with the Bible and (2) it does not give in to liberal renderings of the text. I've not found any other translation that fits both criteria. Now I wonder if the new NIV will fail my test as well.

Maybe I ought to buy up a cartload of the 1984 Bibles while they're still available for use in class over the next 20 years or so.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Nov 17, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Maybe I ought to buy up a cartload of the 1984 Bibles while they're still available for use in class over the next 20 years or so.



When the new NIVs come out in March you can have my '84 copy.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Nov 17, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> But, with the ESV Study Bible and (now) the MacArthur ESV Study Bible, who needs a new Bible?



People that don't like J MacArthur....

Personally, I am really excited for the new NIV to come out.


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Personally, I am really excited for the new NIV to come out.



I don't need the new NIV. We have gas logs in the fireplace. But I can understand how some people could be interested with winter coming on.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 17, 2010)

Comparisons of changes:
NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 17, 2010)

> I don't need the new NIV. We have gas logs in the fireplace. But I can understand how some people could be interested with winter coming on.


----------



## TomVols (Nov 17, 2010)

On face value, with so many unreached in the English-speaking world, I'm deeply troubled by the idea of burning good Bibles and the subsequent agreement shown by at least three folks. However, I'm going to give lattitude in that I pray it was meant in jest. 

Lawrence, thank you for your helpful comparison.

Someone mentioned the HCSB. With the new revision, this could grow on me. But far too many see it as the "Southern Baptist Bible" so I don't know if it will ever gain a foothold


----------



## TomVols (Nov 17, 2010)

Speaking of "have sexual relations" vs "have" in 1 Cor 7:2, Hebrew Student wrote:


> Hence, I am actually happy about that translation.


Right on all points grammatically. I see how one can arrive at that translation. However, "have" lets the reader interpret the extent and I generally believe that's safer ground, especially in light of Paul's 1 Cor usage of the word in the normal "possess" connotation and not euphemistically. Further, it would seem unnecessarily redundant to say in verse 2 what is essentially emphasized in verse 3, save for Paul using an emphatic (which is possible). Also, if verse one and seven "sandwiches" the pericope, and the idea of having a spouse as not being in opposition to a mythic Corinthian ideal is better served with "have" in verse 2 than the NET and NIV interpretative translation. Since contextually speaking both translations are plausible, I like sticking with the most literal. To essentially say "There's so much sin. What you need to do is have sex with your spouse" is justifiable, but the more natural broad-context would argue for Paul essentially saying "since there is so much sexual sin, have a spouse and don't get hung up on singleness." 

That said, the NIV and NET are not felled by this verse rendering at all.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 20, 2010)

TomVols,

Thank you for your comments.



> Right on all points grammatically. I see how one can arrive at that translation. However, "have" lets the reader interpret the extent and I generally believe that's safer ground, especially in light of Paul's 1 Cor usage of the word in the normal "possess" connotation and not euphemistically.



Actually, he does use it in 1 Corinthians 5:1 as a euphomism for marital relations. Also, I would say that the clearly sexual context would imply that we should go that direction, as well as the statement in the following verse that states nearly the same thing.



> Further, it would seem unnecessarily redundant to say in verse 2 what is essentially emphasized in verse 3, save for Paul using an emphatic (which is possible). Also, if verse one and seven "sandwiches" the pericope, and the idea of having a spouse as not being in opposition to a mythic Corinthian ideal is better served with "have" in verse 2 than the NET and NIV interpretative translation. Since contextually speaking both translations are plausible, I like sticking with the most literal. To essentially say "There's so much sin. What you need to do is have sex with your spouse" is justifiable, but the more natural broad-context would argue for Paul essentially saying "since there is so much sexual sin, have a spouse and don't get hung up on singleness."



Actually, I think one could see a progression of thought from verse 2 to verse 3. In verse 3, Paul uses the Greek term _opheile_ to refer to marital relations. This is the normal Greek word for "debt," thus calling marital relations a debt which is owed. Paul then says, as a result of this debt, that the the couple does not have authority over their own bodies. In other words, verse 2 gives the command, and verses 3-4 expound on that command. Verse 3 would give the reason, namely, that it is a marital debt, and verse 4 would then give the consequence to that debt, namely, that each part of the couple does not have authority over their own bodies.

Also, I think one could argue that verse 2 would seem out of place, as the Corinthian saying would be given in verse 1, Paul would then give a command to marry because of sexual immorality in verse 2, and then never talk about it again. That would seem to break up verses 1-2 from the rest of the discourse.

Also, I am not really convinced that the idea of marrying to avoid immorality is part of Pauline thought. Yes, I am aware of verses 8-9 of this chapter, but it is also likely that Paul is dealing with widowers and widows in that verse, who have had their marital relationship broken up by death in a sinful culture like Corinth. It is difficult to then try to transfer that to a simple unmarried person who is struggling with sexual sin. In fact, as I said, when Paul does address virgins specifically in verses 25ff, I commands them to remain as they are, and not get married! Also, when he specifically addresses the issue of immorality, his command is to "flee" immorality [6:18].

As far as how we handle issues like this in translation, I almost wonder if a margin would be best in this instance. The translator translates it in the way he thinks is best, and then uses a footnote to let his readers know that there is an issue with how to understand the verse. That is what the New NIV does with verse 8. It contains a footnote letting people know that it is possible to understand "unmarried" in that verse as "widowers." I think it might have been good to do that with verse 2 as well, just to let people know that the the word is _echo_, and to let the reader know why the translated it in the way that they did.

Anyway, as you said, it doesn't really detract from the translation at all. In fact, I have found that, other than having gender neutral language, this translation actually has many translations that I have been arguing for. For example, _'adam_ is translated as "mankind" in Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 127:5a is translated as a passive, and there is finally a footnote in Malachi 2:15 noting that the first portion of that verse is obscure. So, other than the gender neutral language, I actually like this translation.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 23, 2010)

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a good review of the NIV 2011. Basically it's better than the TNIV, but still not to be recommended due to blurring of gender roles in some passages. Anyone else have thoughts on the article?


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 23, 2010)

YouTube - John Piper - Get A Bible With All The Words

---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

YouTube - Accuracy of the TNIV Bible (?????...)

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

YouTube - John MacArthur Speaks about the TNIV Bible


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 24, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Comparisons of changes:
> NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV


 
Great link Lawrence! Thanks!


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 3, 2010)

SolaGratia said:


> YouTube - John Piper - Get A Bible With All The Words
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
> 
> ...


 
Good post!


----------

