Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I have heard by some that this is the best translation. Why? I just realized my first Bible was an 84 NIV. I may go back to making it my regular go to and daily use Bible.
What Makes The 1984 NIV The Best?
- Thread starter Ryan&Amber2013
- Start date
- Status
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've only ever heard this opinion shared by those who were comparing the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV and lamented the latter's use of gender neutral language and therefore sought to retain the older version.
If you run some queries in your preferred search engine you should be able to find some reviews and critiques of how the 1984 compares to the 2011.
What is driving your interest in making the 1984 NIV your primary translation for daily reading? I ask out of curiosity is all.
If you run some queries in your preferred search engine you should be able to find some reviews and critiques of how the 1984 compares to the 2011.
What is driving your interest in making the 1984 NIV your primary translation for daily reading? I ask out of curiosity is all.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I use the NIV audio Bible on a daily basis and really enjoy it, so I wanted to use the same translation for my daily reading. Also, as long as it is a good translation, the Bible does have an incredible amount of sentimental value.
I read the whole Old Testament in 3 Months from that translation. It is very readable since the translators were focused on making it readable on a middle school reading level. It is definitely a dynamic equivalence translation with paraphrasing. Dr. Robert P. Martin wrote a good little booklet on the translation. https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Translation-New-International-Version/dp/0851515460
I am a Majority Text KJV kind of guy but encourage younger Christians to read easier translations. I just encourage them to examine and use better translations as they mature.
I am a Majority Text KJV kind of guy but encourage younger Christians to read easier translations. I just encourage them to examine and use better translations as they mature.
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
I understand the desire to use the same translation for reading and listening. I did that for a while with the KJV. I can still hear Max McLean's voice when I read certain passages of scripture, which can be unpleasant at times. Lol.
My wife gifted me her personal copy of the 1984 NIV when I first became a Christian while we were dating. I subsequently gifted it to my father not long after for him to read. When my father died I took that Bible back and found an index card I wrote to him that he used as a bookmark with a short testimony of how I became a Christian and a long list of scripture verses I wanted him to look up and read. I also understand the sentimental aspect, though we need to be watchful in this area to ensure we don't become a slave to this sort of reasoning.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
The 1984 NIV does a good job being easy to read in modern English without sacrificing much in literalness over translations like the ESV. There are a few odd choices here and there, but I think the NIV really shines in the Old Testament historical passages and in the wisdom literature. It's still one of my favorites, even if I would reach for a translation like the NASB or NKJV for careful study. The 2011 NIV is in many ways a marked improvement, but they did such a bad job trying to become more gender neutral that it's hard to recommend it (unclear and gramatically strange). The ESV did a better job of striking the balance.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
While I normally make fun of the NIV, it was the bible I used in high school until I got an NKJV.
But whatever the NIV can do in terms of readability, the ESV does better.
But whatever the NIV can do in terms of readability, the ESV does better.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The NIV 1978 was translated by Moses into Hebrew. Need I say anything more? 
This book was very helpful to me and it is the reason why I did not make the NIV my primary translation.
Perhaps the CSB could be a good balance for you. It aims to strike the balance between readability and accuracy and is an 'up to date' translation.
Personally I prefer the ESV and generally use it with the NASB. If you do chose a more readable translation it is good to use it along with a more literal translation.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The idea that the Extremely Silly Version is better than the Newly Inspired Version is one that I find utterly preposterous. 
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Are you just kidding? If not please fill me in. Thanks!The idea that the Extremely Silly Version is better than the Newly Inspired Version is one that I find utterly preposterous.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
It is a joke. Hence, the use of the wink.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Actually someone did say that the NIV was 'the best NT English translation.' That was D.A. Carson, in 1979, in his 'The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism.'
Page 97;
"I am far from arguing that any translation is perfect. Nevertheless, all things taken together, it is my considered judgment that the NIV New Testament is the best English translation of the Greek Testament now available."
As you know, D.A. Carson was the editor, and a contributor to the 2011 NIV Study BIble. I personally think the 2011 is superior in some instances to the '84 NIV.
For perspective on the gender neutral issues, D.A. Carson 'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' is very instructive.
I'd also highly recommend 'How To Read A Translation For All It's Worth,' by Gordon Fee and Michael Strauss. https://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-T...how+to+choose+a+trans,digital-text,159&sr=1-1
Page 97;
"I am far from arguing that any translation is perfect. Nevertheless, all things taken together, it is my considered judgment that the NIV New Testament is the best English translation of the Greek Testament now available."
As you know, D.A. Carson was the editor, and a contributor to the 2011 NIV Study BIble. I personally think the 2011 is superior in some instances to the '84 NIV.
For perspective on the gender neutral issues, D.A. Carson 'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' is very instructive.
I'd also highly recommend 'How To Read A Translation For All It's Worth,' by Gordon Fee and Michael Strauss. https://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-T...how+to+choose+a+trans,digital-text,159&sr=1-1
Last edited:
JennyGeddes
Puritan Board Freshman
I’m far from being any kind of translation expert, but a pastor I trust told me that the 1984 does one of the best treatments of the Psalms.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Of the various iterations of the NIV, the 1984 version is the least ridiculous.
GORFON Feebin that book you listed also called it best translation.Think that it was superior to 2011 revision , as that edition went way too much into gender inclusive renderings, and watered down OT references to Jesus in Son of man passages . Still prefer versions such as KJV, NKJV, and NASB.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I haven't read much of the NIV in almost 2 decades, but it does arguably have a superior literary quality compared with certain other modern versions. And some have been turned off by the Psalms in the CSB due to a perceived lack of literary or poetic quality.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think the idea was that it was the best balance available when it comes to both readability and accuracy. It was generally recommended for ordinary readers or for primary reading use, with the NASB recommended if you really wanted to get serious about Bible study.
I'm not a NIV reader or fan, but it is inaccurate to say it is a paraphrase overall, although it does sacrifice accuracy for readability at times, and does so too often in the eyes of its critics.
When the NIV became the bestseller, the choices were basically the "archaic" KJV, the "woodenly literal" NASB, the liberal RSV, the conservative paraphrase The Living Bible, the liberal paraphrase the Good News Bible/Today's English Version, and the NKJV, which is more readable than the NASB, but doesn't use the "best" manuscripts and allegedly wasn't the best choice for young people and those who are new to the Bible. (Other than the manuscript issue, the same objections would be raised against the ESV today as were raised against something like the NKJV back then. That's why some have switched to the CSB from the ESV.)
There were some like Grudem, Poythress, and Piper who were "closet RSV readers" who wanted something more readable than the NASB and more accurate than the NIV. Others wanted the same thing but weren't really fans of the RSV. Some used the NKJV for those purposes even though they weren't TR or Byzantine/Majority Text advocates. The RSV had too many problems that were the result of it being produced by a liberal committee overseen by the mainline National Council of Churches for it to ever be accepted by most conservatives. The ESV was produced once Crossway got the rights to use the RSV text.
I'll admit that a version that I made a lot of use of when I first started reading the Bible was The Living Bible. One reason was because I had been given the "People's Study Bible" as a gift several years before. Other reasons included the fact that I was broke and couldn't readily stock up on better Bibles at the moment and electronic resources not being readily available at the time. Although fairly basic by today's standards, it was a blessing that the notes and other resources in that Study Bible are rather solid as far as they go.
Last edited:
The 1984Niv was a nice balance between accuracy and readability, but the 2011 revision and it's gender readings really was for the worse.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yes, I recall trying to pray through the Psalms in the CSB and I had to stop for that very reason.
TheBruisedReed
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes. The 1984 NIV is the best...NIV.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Nearly inspired version.
- Status
