As far as I can tell, Logos does not sell this version. It wouldn't surprise me if it's not possible to purchase this version new anywhere currently, as it has been discontinued. Buying used in print may be your best bet, though that may be unsatisfactory if your primary purpose is to work with it in Logos.
looking for the NIV 1984
Kristin
Member Posts: 602 ✭✭✭
I have the NIV as published in 2011, but I am trying to get ahold of the NIV published in 1984. Is there a way to get this? I can't find it in the store.
Thanks.
(Also, I was looking for a product forum, but I didn't see it so I am posting it in general. I hope that is correct).
Kristin
0
Comments
-
As far as I can tell, Logos does not sell this version. It wouldn't surprise me if it's not possible to purchase this version new anywhere currently, as it has been discontinued. Buying used in print may be your best bet, though that may be unsatisfactory if your primary purpose is to work with it in Logos.
0 -
Aaron Hamilton said:
As far as I can tell, Logos does not sell this version. It wouldn't surprise me if it's not possible to purchase this version new anywhere currently, as it has been discontinued. Buying used in print may be your best bet, though that may be unsatisfactory if your primary purpose is to work with it in Logos.
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for the reply and clarification. I appreciate the print idea, but you are correct that I am trying to have it in Logos. Thankfully I already have a print NIV at least. [:)]
0 -
Kristin said:
... I am trying to get ahold of the NIV published in 1984. Is there a way to get this?
Aaron is correct. Logos can no longer sell this as it has been withdrawn by Zondervan.
Your two options are...
1 - Find someone who will sell/transfer to you their license.
2 - Find a txt file of the Bible and create a personal book from that.
I got mine because I had it in WordSearch and that license transferred for me when Logos bought WordSearch and transferred all of my resources at that time.
0 -
I believe that someone who owns a Logos copy can "sell" their Logos copy to you. Logos charges a small fee ($20 if memory serves me correctly) to transfer the Logos license.
There is a Facebook page where you could express you interest to buy such a license from someone who may own it, but not need it. Search for "Logos Bible Resales" in Facebook.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Mike,
You're 100% correct. The challenge is going to be finding someone willing to part with their Niv84 that is not a part of a bundle.
0 -
For $1,000,000 (i.e. One Million) bucks I could sell this 1984 relic! It’s hard to find so it’s worth a lot 😂😂😂
DAL
0 -
Yep. This has to be one of the most requested resources I've seen. There's money to be made for the publishing company, but they won't let Logos sell it.
I wonder how many would purchase this if they had the opportunity.
0 -
Amazon has multiple copies in book form available.
0 -
I have been with Logos for a very long time. I bought the NIV back in the 1990's, hence the 1984 version. Since with Logos you do not lose any resources you bought, even discontinued ones, I am fortunate to have the NIV 1984. It is even a reverse interlinear! Unfortunately, Zondervan has taken the firm position to not sell the the 1984 version, so to drive sales to the updated 2011.
0 -
When the 2011 was released, it was stated by the publisher that the 1984 would no longer be made available in any format. I always hoped they'd change that (look how well NASB '77 and '95 do since they are still in production).
I think the best solution (better than a PB) is to make a note file that has all the changes with indicators in the 2011 text...then you could pop up the original stuff with ease.
It wouldn't surprise me if someone hasn't already created such a note file (but I've not looked for it in the Files).
I have a note file of the ESV changes from the previous to the 2016 text and something similar with the NIV could be a helpful tool. The ESV file was shared by another user and is free to copy.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Doc B said:
I think the best solution (better than a PB) is to make a note file that has all the changes with indicators in the 2011 text...then you could pop up the original stuff with ease.
Hi Doc B,
That is a good idea! If anyone has such a link, please let us know!
Doc B said:I have a note file of the ESV changes from the previous to the 2016 text and something similar with the NIV could be a helpful tool. The ESV file was shared by another user and is free to copy.
Do you mind posting the link to that, or explaining how to get a copy of the ESV one?
0 -
DAL said:
For $1,000,000 (i.e. One Million) bucks I could sell this 1984 relic! It’s hard to find so it’s worth a lot 😂😂😂
DAL
I have the 1984 Reverse Interlinear. I bet thats worth $2,000,000 [H]
I also have a whole bunch of brand new printed copies. Wonder if they are worth anything?
N.T. Wright says the NIV mistranslates a lot of things.
0 -
Scot Wright said:
Unfortunately, Zondervan has taken the firm position to not sell the the 1984 version, so to drive sales to the updated 2011.
Actually it was the new owner, Biblica that held the copyright. I had a conversation with the manager of a Zondervan bookstore (anybody remember those?) back then. I was told that they were not allowed to sell the old (1984) ones, they were forced to ship them back ... to be destroyed.
And the reason they took such a radical approach is because the TNIV had been rejected by most of evangelicalism ... due to issues related to gender translation. They wanted to make sure the updated NIV was not also rejected.
This led to the creation of the ESV. And also the HCSB which was eventually revised to the CSB, which ironically adopted most of the same philosophy for translating gender.
0 -
Kristin said:
For sure a true statement.
I like its reading level for a lot of my students though, so I sort of have a love hate relationship with the NIV.I still have the option to use the 1984 NIV, but I chose not to simply because it is not legal for anyone else to get a copy.
My personal opinion is that the NIV is the most readable English translation ever produced. But they ruined it with the 2011 revision. They wanted to go gender neutral (following in the footsteps of the 1989 NRSV). And back then, evangelicalism was not buying that.
Maybe you could consider the 2011 NIV?
0 -
John said:
they were forced to ship them back ... to be destroyed.
Seriously??? That is really intense. [*-)]
John said:They wanted to go gender neutral (following in the footsteps of the 1989 NRSV).
I think the NIV 2011 was more of a moderate re-do of the TNIV.
John said:Maybe you could consider the 2011 NIV?
Just to be clear, I already use the NIV 2011 with (a lot of) my students. I was just looking for the 1984 version for comparison reasons.
0 -
If people boycotted the 2011 version and demanded for the 1984 NIV to be brought back, then they would do so in a heart beat! Money talks and publishers are all about the good’ol mighty dollar $ But that won’t happen because most people won’t stand for that but they’ll fall for other stuff.
DAL
0 -
Kristin said:
I was just looking for the 1984 version for comparison reasons.
I'm going to try to save an HTML file with a text compare on here. Hope it works.
Comparison created using Bibleworks text data compared with Beyond Compare software.
NIV 1984 vs 2011 Text Compare
0 -
John said:
Comparison created using Bibleworks text data compared with Beyond Compare software.
NIV 1984 vs 2011 Text Compare
Beyond Compare is excellent! I use it in my work comparing legal text. The HTML view is very convenient for sharing with others, like in this case.
I wonder if you could do a side by side comparison to see how it would turn out.
0 -
DAL said:
If people boycotted the 2011 version and demanded for the 1984 NIV to be brought back, then they would do so in a heart beat! Money talks and publishers are all about the good’ol mighty dollar $
I unfortunately agree. [:(]
John said:I'm going to try to save an HTML file with a text compare on here. Hope it works.
Comparison created using Bibleworks text data compared with Beyond Compare software.
NIV 1984 vs 2011 Text Compare
Thank you, John! [Y]
0 -
Bill Anderson said:
Beyond Compare is excellent! I use it in my work comparing legal text. The HTML view is very convenient for sharing with others, like in this case.
Yes, I have been using Beyond Compare for decades. The best software of its kind by far. I will be updating to version 5 soon.
Bill Anderson said:I wonder if you could do a side by side comparison to see how it would turn out.
0 -
I got mine as part of a CD-ROM set back when it was still Libronix. No idea if it even could be sold.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
0
-
DAL said:
If people boycotted the 2011 version and demanded for the 1984 NIV to be brought back, then they would do so in a heart beat!
I think you have this wrong. It would be problematic selling a product that the publisher knows to be misleading.
Once the received wisdom was that some words, mostly translated 'brothers', as I understand it, deserved a wider definition how could a publisher continue to offer a substandard product and not be subject to mis-selling law suits.
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Mike Binks said:
I think you have this wrong. It would be problematic selling a product that the publisher knows to be misleading.
Agreed 100%. The NIV11 is a better translation and was intended to replace the previous versions. (Check out the people serving on the committee that oversees the NIV revisions; they're trustworthy scholars.)
0 -
Mike Binks said:
I think you have this wrong. It would be problematic selling a product that the publisher knows to be misleading.
Once the received wisdom was that some words, mostly translated 'brothers', as I understand it, deserved a wider definition how could a publisher continue to offer a substandard product and not be subject to mis-selling law suits.
Agreed. No translation is perfect, but the 2011 version is an improvement.
0 -
John said:
Yes, I have been using Beyond Compare for decades. The best software of its kind by far. I will be updating to version 5 soon.
John, thanks a lot! This view is great.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
Regardless to stuff the '84 under a rug is not acceptable. I can still read the KJV from the 1600s and the NASB still has all of its versions for sale. I will never understand hiding information that is useful for comparison.
0 -
I suppose having the NIV 1984 Bible is just one of the perks for having been a Logos customer for decades. I think the publisher is nuts for not letting the NIV 1984 be sold. It is a great translation.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Mattillo said:
...I can still read the KJV from the 1600s and the NASB still has all of its versions for sale. I will never understand hiding information that is useful for comparison.
I agree. And there are valid reasons for wanting to use an older translation. Some congregations (like the one I attend) still have 1984 NIV pew bibles. We're unlikely to replace them all anytime soon just because an update is available. There are times when it can be useful to teach from the same text as the pew bibles, even if it's an older text. There are still commentaries and study materials out there that are based on the 1984 NIV, and it can be useful at times to follow along with the translation that was used in developing them.
And then there's the elephant in the room. Given the ongoing debates over translation issues, it can be helpful to see exactly what has - and hasn't - changed as translations are updated and revised. We can't really discuss whether a new edition is an improvement or not if we no longer have the old one to compare it to.
On that note, I believe it's very important how we discuss the relative merits of different translations. Languages change over time, and no translator or group of translators is infallible. That means that we need new and updated translations to effectively convey God's word to new generations. But the fact that one translation may be clearer, easier to understand, or simply more contemporary doesn't invalidate other translations. A couple of generations of Christians have grown up, come to the fairth, and matured using the older NIV. In light of that, I'd be cautious about calling it "misleading." There doubtless are advantages to the new edition, and I'm sure it's clearer in some respects, but I don't think it's helpful to suggest that the old version is somehow as a result any less truly the word of God.
0 -
Mattillo said:
Regardless to stuff the '84 under a rug is not acceptable. I can still read the KJV from the 1600s and the NASB still has all of its versions for sale. I will never understand hiding information that is useful for comparison.
Certainly agree to that too.
0 -
Mattillo said:
Regardless to stuff the '84 under a rug is not acceptable. I can still read the KJV from the 1600s and the NASB still has all of its versions for sale. I will never understand hiding information that is useful for comparison.
Not to be cynical, but it appears that they did it in order to push 2011 sales.
Mike Childs said:I think the publisher is nuts for not letting the NIV 1984 be sold.
Agreed.
EastTN said:A couple of generations of Christians have grown up, come to the fairth, and matured using the older NIV. In light of that, I'd be cautious about calling it "misleading."
I agree with this. The 1984 version had its issues, but so did the 2011 version. That said, what I do call "misleading" is the publisher calling the 2011 version the "NIV." They could have at least given it another name like they did with the TNIV, so that the common man knew something had changed. To distinguish it purely by checking the copyright gives the strong impression that they were trying to hide the change from the pew sitter.
0 -
The publisher, in this case, only publishes. They don't own the NIV. I was talking to one of the NIV translators about ten years ago and was told that because they (the committee) believe the NIV 2011 to be a better, more accurate translation, they were no longer allowing the 1984 version to be sold. They control the copyright and make the decisions, not the publisher.
0 -
Tom Reynolds said:
The publisher, in this case, only publishes. They don't own the NIV. I was talking to one of the NIV translators about ten years ago and was told that because they (the committee) believe the NIV 2011 to be a better, more accurate translation, they were no longer allowing the 1984 version to be sold. They control the copyright and make the decisions, not the publisher.
That's interesting! I never heard that before.
I still think it is a raw deal they are hiding their previous work... show people how you improved instead of hiding it.
0 -
Here's their official answer to "Why can’t I find an NIV Bible with the 1984 text?"
After the release of the 2011 NIV text, Biblica, the copyright holder for the NIV, decided not to allow further publication of the 1984 NIV text. The original NIV charter requires that the Committee on Bible Translation constantly monitor developments in biblical scholarship and changes in global English usage and to reflect these changes in periodic updates to the text. Without these periodic updates the NIV would be unable to maintain the priorities that have drawn people to it over the years: providing the optimum blend of transparency to the original text and ease of understanding for a broad audience.
In the latest 2011 update, about 95% of the text remains exactly the same as the 1984 NIV that it replaces, based on the number of word changes. All the changes in the updated text are attributable to at least one of the following factors: new archaeological findings, changes in global English usage, progress in scholarship, and concern for clarity.
0 -
That makes sense. Thanks for sharing.
But in another 50 years, it's PD. 😊
0 -
Tom Reynolds said:
The original NIV charter requires that the Committee on Bible Translation constantly monitor developments in biblical scholarship and changes in global English usage and to reflect these changes in periodic updates to the text. Without these periodic updates the NIV would be unable to maintain the priorities that have drawn people to it over the years: providing the optimum blend of transparency to the original text and ease of understanding for a broad audience.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for their statement. That was interesting. That said, their official answer sounds like a non-answer to me, as they basically just explained why the Bible translation is periodically updated. However, that does not answer why older versions should be hidden and even prevented from being sold. Academics certainly still need access to older versions.
0 -
Out of curiosity, how does the "Today's New International Version" fit into the revisions to the NIV. I have a copy in Logos and the preface states that it is a revision to the NIV84.
The copyright is 2001 and 2005 by the International Bible Society.
Also, the copyright for the NIV2011 lists 1973,1978, 1984 and 2011.
I couldn't find it for sale on the Logos website. Seems like this version is forgotten.
Gerald
0 -
Perk said:
Out of curiosity, how does the "Today's New International Version" fit into the revisions to the NIV. I have a copy in Logos and the preface states that it is a revision to the NIV84.
Hi Gerald,
The TNIV (2005) was basically a revision of the NIV 1984 in order to update the translation to be more modern. This said, one of the key features of the TNIV was its gender neutral language. However, they went so far with the gender neutrality that people complained that the TNIV had obscured prophecies, and it thus was not well received.
Enough so, that they took it off the market and replaced it with the NIV11. The NIV retained a lot of the gender neutral language (compare Rom 1:13 "I don't want you to be unaware, brothers, that..." (1984) // "I don't want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that..." (TNIV / 2011), but they did fix a lot of the extreme gender neutrality which caused prophecy problems.
Perk said:I couldn't find it for sale on the Logos website. Seems like this version is forgotten.
Ya, they (who owns the rights, not Logos) are hoping we forget about it, but I am personally against erasing versions. Whether the 1984 or problematic TNIV.
Take care,
Kristin0 -
My solution a while back, was just to get the NIV84 Anglicized. But I guess, now it's gone too. But as luck would have it, my NIV84-A has an RI that I must have got at some point.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Perk said:
Out of curiosity, how does the "Today's New International Version" fit into the revisions to the NIV. I have a copy in Logos and the preface states that it is a revision to the NIV84.
The TNIV did not sell well, as it's gender modifications were rejected by the majority of conservative evangelicalism in the US.
The 2011 revision of the NIV was essentially the same text as the TNIV which had been rejected, with very minor changes.
This page has a short history of that time along with a lot of links: http://bible-researcher.com/tniv.html
0 -
Mattillo said:
Regardless to stuff the '84 under a rug is not acceptable. I can still read the KJV from the 1600s and the NASB still has all of its versions for sale.
I understand that 'Fly Fishing by J. R. Hartley' is no longer for sale either. The publishers will not do a reprint nor will they allow others to reprint it. If you have the copyright then you have the copy right. That seems fair to me.
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
I'm genuinely curious and not looking for a theological debate. I'm guessing there are 2 main reasons for preferring the 1984 version:
1 It's the church Bible where you worship
2 A preference to avoid gender neutrality - although my understanding is that the 2011 edition uses gender neutrality where the previous use of "brothers" was actually addressing all people.
Are there other key reasons why some prefer the 1984 version?
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
I'm genuinely curious and not looking for a theological debate. I'm guessing there are 2 main reasons for preferring the 1984 version:
1 It's the church Bible where you worship
2 A preference to avoid gender neutrality - although my understanding is that the 2011 edition uses gender neutrality where the previous use of "brothers" was actually addressing all people.
Are there other key reasons why some prefer the 1984 version?
Hi Paul,
Personally, I had been looking for the 1984 version for academic reasons. (Somewhat similar to why I still keep the TNIV).That said, I do not like gender neutral language. While the 2011 version was an improvement from the TNIV, I personally don't like the gender neutral language which did remain, such as the “brothers and sisters” references in the epistles.I had not thought about the issue of the pew Bible, but you raise an interesting point. Perhaps that is part of the logic for why they had to pull it. From their statement, they profess that the 2011 is a better translation, and thus stopping publication would force churches to eventually update all their pew Bibles.0 -
Kristin said:
Hi Paul,
Personally, I had been looking for the 1984 version for academic reasons. (Somewhat similar to why I still keep the TNIV). That said, I do not like gender neutral language. While the 2011 version was an improvement from the TNIV, I personally don't like the gender neutral language which did remain, such as the “brothers and sisters” references in the epistles. I had not thought about the issue of the pew Bible, but you raise an interesting point. Perhaps that is part of the logic for why they had to pull it. From their statement, they profess that the 2011 is a better translation, and thus stopping publication would force churches to eventually update all their pew Bibles.
I guess for me the change from brothers to brothers and sisters in the letters is a plus point, as Paul and others weren't just addressing the men.
I'd still be interested to know if others find some other benefits in the original 1984 translation.
0 -
Kristin said:
That said, I do not like gender neutral language.
Apart from a personal predilection for gender specifics, do you have any logical reason to suppose that the translators have misinterpreted the evidence?
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
I think that one of the practical reasons people want the Niv84 is because it's the version they grew up with. For almost 20 years, 90% of the members in my church used the 1984 Niv. The verses they memorized and the print bibles in church are all the 84 version. Even though it's not the version I use, I do refer to it often when studying because it is the version my wife and many others use.
0 -
Mike Binks said:
Apart from a personal predilection for gender specifics, do you have any logical reason to suppose that the translators have misinterpreted the evidence?
Hi Mike,
I am not generally accusing them of misinterpreting the evidence, as I agree the meaning is often (not always) intended inclusively. My issue is rather that I tend to like translations to be a little more literal. Not hyper literal, obviously, but I personally think that adding "and sisters" is taking too much license.
Ronald Quick said:I think that one of the practical reasons people want the Niv84 is because it's the version they grew up with.
Good point. [:)]
0 -
Mike Binks said:
Apart from a personal predilection for gender specifics ...
I think the point is that a translation is supposed to translate. It is not supposed to change the message to suit current cultural beliefs (which are corrupt).
Gender neutrality is not the battle anymore. It was fought and lost. All new translations since the 1989 NRSV have been translated inaccurately and made gender neutral to suit the current concerns of a corrupt culture that has rejected God.
One exception is the ESV, which followed the Colorado Springs guidelines and only translates using plural or inclusive language when the original language contains those same attributes. It is an accurate translation.
Edit: The NASB2020 went gender neutral, and was rejected by most of its users. One consequence of that was the commissioning of the LSB. The Legacy Standard Bible may have retained accurate translation of gender, although I am not familiar enough with the LSB to know with certainty. But the LSB may be another holdout to the cultural corruption, along with the ESV.
0
