New NIV available on bible gateway.com when will it be on logos? Free upgrade please?

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 32 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 23
Mark Maloney | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Nov 21 2010 12:45 AM

The New version of the NIV is now available on Biblegateway.com b4 print version next year couLd we please have it ASAP on logos and free upgrade for those who already have NIV.  Thanks.  

Posts 2759
DominicM | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 21 2010 1:10 AM

would you expect to take your bible back to the bookshop and swap it with a new print edition for free Confused ??

Free upgrade - very unlikely - this is Zondervan we are talking about, I wouldn't expect any discount as it is a new edition but no price AFAIK has been released.

I hope Logos keeps the 2 resources (NIV and NIV2011) distinctly seperate, so we can do comparative study on it, not all change is progress..

 

Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have

Posts 2875
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 24 2010 6:37 PM

DominicM:

would you expect to take your bible back to the bookshop and swap it with a new print edition for free Confused ??

YES, If they did not get it right the first time. Defective products should be replaced at no cost.

[And if it was not defective why are they replacing it?] 

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 24 2010 8:38 PM

David Ames:

DominicM:

would you expect to take your bible back to the bookshop and swap it with a new print edition for free Confused ??

YES, If they did not get it right the first time. Defective products should be replaced at no cost.

[And if it was not defective why are they replacing it?] 

 

Well most translations have updated themselves, the 1978 version of the NIV is different for the 1984 version that has been around till now, no one got a free NIV 1984 that I know of. Nor did lockman foundation give updated versions in 1995 when they finally got rid of that horrid archaic language. Perhaps a better  thing would be comparing RSV to the 1972 NT update or more so the complete update that was the NRSV. It wasn;t defective  but the fact is language changes, scholarship advances. Was it needed, I can't say, the IBS has the right, you don't have to buy it. 

 

-Dan

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 24 2010 8:38 PM

We don't have it yet ourselves. (BibleGateway is now owned by Zondervan, which explains why they have it first.)

Posts 13420
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 3:01 AM

Mark Maloney:
free upgrade

If Logos 'upgrade' thousands of users beloved 1984 NIV with the new 'improved' version, they'll cause a riot (and rightly so). Those of us who want the new version will have to buy it, and then choose which we prefer (and run Text Comparisons between the two).

Posts 23
Mark Maloney | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 3:33 AM

Hi Guys

thank you to all have replied.  The main point of my query is to find out when it is going to be available on logos.  Still looking for advice.  Will it just happen or have to go through the whole process of 'gathering interest' etc?  If it needs to go through a drumming up of support could that process be begun now rather than waiting until it is published?

The free part was really supplimental:

It is my understanding that the NIV2011 is supposed to replace the previous NIV and not be an alternative version, after all who differentiates between the NIV1978 or the NIV1984? The NIV1978 was superseded by the NIV1984 and just called the NIV. 

If that is the case then there could potentially be an issue of referencing around the term NIV and it may be simpler for Logos to simply send out the NIV2011 as an update to the NIV files than create a seperate product.

Why would anyone still want the older version when presumably a similar process of discernment and inspiration is at work?  (Rhetorical question)

Personally I expect to have to pay!  But it is frustrating when the TNIV which is only 5 (or so) years old has now been discontinued after many of us invested in it heavily.  (I realise that this is nothing to do with Logos)

Yours

Mark Maloney

Posts 1359
Edwin Bowden | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 4:57 AM

Mark Maloney:

Why would anyone still want the older version when presumably a similar process of discernment and inspiration is at work?  (Rhetorical question)

Personally I expect to have to pay!  But it is frustrating when the TNIV which is only 5 (or so) years old has now been discontinued after many of us invested in it heavily.  (I realise that this is nothing to do with Logos)

From the comparisons that I have seen, most of the revisions have incorporated the TNIV changes.

That is WHY many would like to continue with the NIV that they have used for decades instead.

Posts 13420
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 6:18 AM

Mark Maloney:
Will it just happen or have to go through the whole process of 'gathering interest' etc?  If it needs to go through a drumming up of support could that process be begun now rather than waiting until it is published?

I'm sure with an product as important as this, Logos are already on to it. I suspect a main problem is Zondervan who, in my opinion, see the NIV as something of a cash cow. For example, Logos users, who have already paid for the 1984 resource, are currently being prevented by Zondervan from using it on their iPhones - almost the only Bible publisher to do so.

When it's released it probably will go through the pre-pub process, but I imagine it will start at the 'under contract' stage, not the 'gathering interest' stage.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 7:09 AM

Mark Barnes:
I'm sure with an product as important as this, Logos are already on to it. I suspect a main problem is Zondervan who, in my opinion, see the NIV as something of a cash cow.

I don't know if they actually see it that way, but, looking at their decision making process from the outside, it often seems so. Still, it's unwise to project dubious motives onto people one has never met.

However, you may remember that when Zondervan released the TNIV, it was made available to Libronix users for free via an update to our base package. Zondervan doesn't have to market the 1984 NIV, because it is the de facto standard for many, many individuals and churches. The only way to make any gains on their own market would be to give away the 2011 NIV to spiritual leaders (i.e., pastors, Sunday school teachers, Bible study leaders, etc.). One great way to do that is to give it via Logos - it's a lot less expensive than sending a hard copy in the mail (I recently got a free copy of the Common English Bible NT in the mail).So I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2011 NIV come to us in the same way the TNIV did.

Zondervan has an uphill battle in supplanting the '84 NIV, there are too many loyal fans (if 'fan' is the right word). In fact, I don't think they can do it. There's an old saying that says that things don't change unless the pain of change is less than the pain of things staying the same. The 1984 NIV isn't painful enough (archaic, outdated, gender-language charged enough) to require millions of people changing the Bible they have and still love. (That wasn't the situation in 1984, when the NIV came on the scene.)

BTW, if the 2011 NIV overwrites the '84 NIV's we have in Logos, Bob would have a mass revolt on his hands, as would Zondervan. Neither Logos, nor Zondervan is that foolish (IMHO, of course).

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 3917
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 7:30 AM

Richard DeRuiter:
I don't know if they actually see it that way, but, looking at their decision making process from the outside, it often seems so. Still, it's unwise to project dubious motives onto people one has never met.

i agree with you.

I certainly won't expect the 2011 for free, but will happily oblige, if so . . .  Smile  

I am looking forward to this translation.  I have been grateful for the NIV ever since I started reading it as a teen in the 70's.  Still, careful study has shown some of their translation choices to be subpar at points.  Leaving the gender inclusive issue aside, I like several of the TNIV changes.  I am interested in seeing how the new NIV pulls it all together.

 

I also wonder how Z will revamp their SB, now that the ESVSB has made such a huge splash.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 2759
DominicM | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 7:51 AM

sone one here has already run a comparison between the 2011, TNIV And NIV, may save some of you a lot of time..

Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have

Posts 7
Jeff | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 8:27 AM

Richard DeRuiter:

However, you may remember that when Zondervan released the TNIV, it was made available to Libronix users for free via an update to our base package.

I want to point out that initially the TNIV was only available for purchase as a separate resource.  Later on it became a free update to the base packages.  (I know this since I purchased the TNIV a couple of months before it became available at no cost.)

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 25 2010 9:53 AM

Jeff:
I want to point out that initially the TNIV was only available for purchase as a separate resource.  Later on it became a free update to the base packages.  (I know this since I purchased the TNIV a couple of months before it became available at no cost.)

Thanks for the correction. I had totally forgotten that.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 100
Anthony Grubb | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 4 2010 11:18 PM

DominicM:

sone one here has already run a comparison between the 2011, TNIV And NIV, may save some of you a lot of time..

 

On second thought, DominicM, the comparisons there may waste a lot of time, since it is so confusing.  The author did not meaningfully or accurately communicate the data.  He did provide a link to a simpler, more meaningful presentation, but did not understand the relevance of this comparison and incorporate it into his own ellaborate display of figures.

Case in point: We can look at Jude, a bite-sized book containing 25 verses.   Here he lists the below statistics, dividing the 25 verses into (8 + 14 +  0 +  3), so at least the math is solid, if not the communication method.

BookNo changes in anyUses TNIV textUses NIV1984 textNew text in NIV2011
Jude 8 32.0% 14 56.0% 0 0.0% 3 12.0%

 

 

To begin with, it is not entirely clear what the first column, "No changes in any" communicates.  To understand if NIV1984, one of the three makes a "change", are we comparing the NIV1984 to the NIV1978?  No, the NIV1978 is not in consideration here.  If you think it is a simple matter of wording that it shows the NIV2011 makes "no changes" over the NIV1984 and the TNIV, then why at the same time are there in the first column 8 verses with "no changes" but in the third colum, 0 verses in which the NIV2011 "Uses NIV1984 text"? 

It can't be BOTH 8 verses AND 0 verses where the NIV2011 agrees with the NIV1984.  This is a logical fallacy, one or both of these columns is incorrectly worded, or else they are mutually exclusive and contradictory.  Nevertheless, I will not leave you hanging, and I WILL answer what the first and third columns are meant to communicate, harmonizing the discrepancy by a means not necessarily available for Scriptural harmonization, I will show how to reword both columns to make this meaningful.

To solve this mystery, the link he provided is necessary to understand the third column is NOT simply testing the NIV2011 against the NIV1984, despite the confusing heading, "Uses NIV 1984 text."  In fact, it is testing the NIV2011 against the NIV1984 ONLY for any time the TNIV had already made a change to NIV1984--and it is discovering whether the NIV2011 overthrows the TNIV changes and reverts to a NIV1984 rendering.  Hence the third column should read something more like "Reverts to NIV1984." 

Similarly, the first column does not test "changes" between the three translations (especially since the NIV1984 always makes "no changes" to itself, making the heading redundant and patently nonsensical).  On the contrary, it is a listing of verses where all three translations are in AGREEMENT.  Hence, a brief title like "All three agree" would suffice for the first column.  

As a result, the information should not just be a confusing printout of computerized findings under illogical and contradictory headings, but should be accurate, communicative, and understandable, reading more like this:

BookAll three agreeUses TNIV changesReverts to NIV1984New text in NIV2011
Jude 8 32.0% 14 56.0% 0 0.0% 3 12.0%

In conclusion, as seen on the graph, and in the confusing statistical comparison improved upon here, the NIV2011 is closely alligned with the TNIV, makes some of its own changes, and only rarely reverts to the NIV1984.  Also, those skilled with setting up computerized comparisons would do well to transfer the task of presentation to those with aptitude in communicating the data, so they might reach and benefit a wider audience.

Posts 21
Robert Slowley | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 8:24 AM

Anthony - I'm sorry you found the week's unpaid work I put in to doing the NIV84/TNIV/NIV2011 comparison to be 'illogical and contradictory'.

Oddly enough I've received an enormous amount of praise from other people about the work I did, and you're the first person to both have a major complaint and not to actually notify me of it with an aim to helping me improve what I've done.

Rather than ranting on Logos.com about how terrible what I've done was (when your main complain is you think four phrases could be improved that are explained on the site *anyway*) perhaps in future you could be a bit more charitable about your assessment of what other people have done, and instead of rubbishing them elsewhere on the net you could contact them to let them know how they could do things better.

Just a thought.

Posts 439
Mathew Haferkamp | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 8:50 AM

Whether it is free does not matter to me, but will it be listed as a separate source(2011 NIV) and not just replace it??  Because the TNIV weighs political correctness more than actual translation and I have heard the 2011 NIV will follow that theme.

Posts 13420
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 12:57 PM

Robert, for what it's worth, I found your site helpful and clear, and have glanced through it several times over recent weeks.

Posts 2759
DominicM | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 3:16 PM

me too, has saved me hours of work, thx Robert

Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have

Posts 100
Anthony Grubb | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 6:57 PM

Robert Slowley:

Anthony - ... week's unpaid work....Rather than ranting....perhaps in future you could be a bit more charitable about your assessment of what other people have done, and instead of rubbishing them elsewhere on the net you could contact them to let them know how they could do things better...

Glad you had a chance to read it, hadn't begun to search you out yet, though the idea began to grow in my mind (in nearly the same words as you offer) that I "could contact them to let them know how they could do things better."  Nevertheless, your work was already being discussed in third person in this format of rational discussion.  Other works are in discussion here, and it is my presumption that not every user here has contacted the publishers of the NIV with their comments, nor has the publisher directly weighed-in in this somewhat obscure corner of discussion.  I was not yet in the process of using diplomacy to court your favor and present my plea, but things are where they are, I am humbled that you found me worthy of your own personal attention and reply!  

Mr. Slowley, if I may be so bold, now that you've seen my comments, and now that I see your reply, calling my hand on a perceived technicality of ranting and failing to contact you directly, I can only presume you may very well chose to purposely avoid benefitting from my assessment.  As Dale Carnegie once quoted, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."   On the other hand, I do see evidences of open-mindedness in you, for which I am both hopeful and grateful.

I wouldn't begin to understand the process you used to set up the comparisons.  I take your word it was a week's worth of highly-skilled and unpaid work, and I am glad you have received congratulations for your accomplishment.  I can remember times I worked on something very hard, and initial criticism did not set well with me, until someone showed me how it was confusing to them, and how they could benefit from it more.  When the changes were made, the lightbulbs came on for my audience--not because they "won" the argument, but because they understood my material.  At the risk of being forward, please take it from me, a person who is of above average skill in reading statistics and graphical displays; these are still presented in a form which can be improved upon, and once I was able to understand what was actually being presented, the lightbulbs came on for me. 

In this vein, I regret that I did not know the original author would so quickly be in my audience, and that I had not taken time to express gratitude for the body of knowledge he was offering, just freshly overcoming my own frustration and confusion in understanding the display. Apart from that and in addition to that, I stand by the original assessment and my recommendations.

I hope you will give me the courtesy of "the benefit of the doubt" that my assessment was given in the hopes of eventual improvement, and without a desire to deride anyone.  While this constructive criticism was offered in the unpresumptuous third person, you may decide to ignore it or otherwise assess it yourself.  In my recent reading, it was explained that in offering something useful and received by a wide audience, it is necessary to submit work humbly, work with others, relinquish some control over the work.  It may also help to view yourself as a little more of a public figure who posts his own work on the web and who can afford to give up being offended at comments on blogs and forums.

I am sorry we could not connect on a more meaningful level on our first attempt.  Nevertheless, I'm hopeful we can keep in view that this is all in His service, we are all looking for the best translations and tools to understand, apply and communicate God's love, and I'm confident we will be able to view each other as brothers working toward that same goal.

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS