looking for the NIV 1984
Comments
-
Didn’t the same thing happen to the ESV when it got updates? I think I like the Lockman Foundation in this regard, because they offer the older versions of their NASB 1977, 1995 and 2020.
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
Didn’t the same thing happen to the ESV when it got updates?
Not sure what you mean here. The ESV has made numerous revisions to the text, but it has never made a major change in its translation philosophy, which is what the TNIV and NIV 2011 were in comparison to the 1978 and 1984 NIV.
0 -
John said:DAL said:
Didn’t the same thing happen to the ESV when it got updates?
Not sure what you mean here. The ESV has made numerous revisions to the text, but it has never made a major change in its translation philosophy, which is what the TNIV and NIV 2011 were in comparison to the 1978 and 1984 NIV.
Gotcha! 👌
0 -
Kristin said:
...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.
Maybe that's what they're thinking, but if so, it may not work out the way they expect. Many congregations don't replace their pew Bibles until the old ones wear out, simply as a matter of financial stewardship. (There are lots of other things congregational funds can go towards.) And when they do need to replace them, there are an increasing number of translations to choose from, such as the ESV and CSB. The NIV is currently the best selling translation, but there's no guarantee that will continue.
0 -
Since we're letting the Bible translation wars proceed unmoderated: the 2011 NIV is a vastly superior translation to the 1984. People get hung up on the gender neutralization, but they fixed a lot of other translation choices that rendered the 1984 very unreliable for serious study. They even brought "the flesh" back. It's so much better that I use it as a default translation for preaching, which I would never do with the 1984.
Also, I really like the 2020 NASB.
0 -
Sean said:
People get hung up on the gender neutralization
Once a translation allows itself to deviate from the original inspired scriptures, it is no longer a faithful translation. If God wanted to be viewed as a female, or genderless, he could have done that.
There are some who want to portray God in scripture as "Parent" rather than "Father".
If the next NIV revision makes that change, will you still be using it?
0 -
Mike Binks said: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.
This is true and they have that right. That said Bible translations are different. People want to know what was changed. Why not just sell digitally to Bible software? Smells of people hiding their work. I have no dog in this fight. I have never nor will I ever use the Nearly Inspired Version. If others find it useful for their study of God’s word then I hope it brings them blessing. In fact, several people in my group use it. We enjoy discussions over our differences…
0 -
-
John said:Sean said:
People get hung up on the gender neutralization
Once a translation allows itself to deviate from the original inspired scriptures, it is no longer a faithful translation. If God wanted to be viewed as a female, or genderless, he could have done that.
There are some who want to portray God in scripture as "Parent" rather than "Father".
If the next NIV revision makes that change, will you still be using it?
It was error in the older versions of the English Bible to consistently translate ἄνθρωπος as "man"; they often missed the meaning of the original when they did that. Modern versions that use something else are more faithful in this regard.
The issues involved here are complex, and I don't think any one version has the perfect solution for them. I couldn't care less if ἀδελφοί gets translated as "brothers" or "brothers and sisters" as neither are wrong. On the other hand, the erasure of "son of man" from the Old Testament is inexcusable.
The point is, though, that there are trade-offs with every translation, and just because one doesn't gender neutralize and another does, it doesn't mean that the former is a better translation and the latter is worse--because there are other issues in translation.
But I also know this is not what this is all about.
0 -
Sean said:
It was error in the older versions of the English Bible to consistently translate ἄνθρωπος as "man"; they often missed the meaning of the original when they did that. Modern versions that use something else are more faithful in this regard.
I wish we could get away from characterizing these translation decisions as errors. English usage has changed, and that's why we need newer translations. That doesn't make older translations, which followed older English usage, "wrong." When I was a kid, English use of "man," "men," "brothers," etc. was much closer to the ancient Greek use of anthropos, anthropoi and adelphoi - and that was reflected in the English translations of the time. Due to relatively recent changes in our society, English usage has shifted significantly in this area. But that doesn't make older translations any less faithful - they're simply out-of-date, and may be harder for people who aren't familiar with older forms of English to understand. We should recognize that, and talk about it. But I don't think it helps anyone to start dividing translations into those that are right and those that are wrong.
0 -
Though I doubt anyone cares. I prefer the NIV 1984 to any other English translation. However, since my congregation cannot buy one (except a used one on ebay), I now preach from the ESV. But personally, I use either the Hebrew and Greek, or the NIV 1984.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
EastTN said:
I wish we could get away from characterizing these translation decisions as errors. English usage has changed, and that's why we need newer translations. That doesn't make older translations, which followed older English usage, "wrong." ... I don't think it helps anyone to start dividing translations into those that are right and those that are wrong.
Hi EastTN,
I would agree with most of your point, as it is important to recognize that language changes. That said, I think I would come short of not dividing translations into being good or not. There are some translations I tell students are ok to read, and there are others I tell them to avoid.
Mike Childs said:Though I doubt anyone cares. I prefer the NIV 1984 to any other English translation. However, since my congregation cannot buy one (except a used one on ebay), I now preach from the ESV. But personally, I use either the Hebrew and Greek, or the NIV 1984.
Hi Mike,
Do you mind clarifying why you like the NIV 84 over the ESV?
0 -
Kristin said:EastTN said:
I wish we could get away from characterizing these translation decisions as errors. English usage has changed, and that's why we need newer translations. That doesn't make older translations, which followed older English usage, "wrong." ... I don't think it helps anyone to start dividing translations into those that are right and those that are wrong.
Hi EastTN,
I would agree with most of your point, as it is important to recognize that language changes. That said, I think I would come short of not dividing translations into being good or not. There are some translations I tell students are ok to read, and there are others I tell them to avoid.
Hi Kristin,
Please don't get me wrong - I have opinions about translations, and personal recommendations about the best translations for people in different situations (age, education, knowledge of the Bible, etc.). There are some I would likely never recommend. But I don't think it's healthy for people to start doubting whether the Bible they're reading is the word of God, and I don't want to every say anything that would inadvertently undermine someone's faith. So I'm perfectly comfortable saying easier to read, hard to understand, communicates well, out-of-date, etc. I just don't want to trash a translation that's helping a brother or sister and undermine their trust in God.
0 -
EastTN said:
Hi Kristin,
Please don't get me wrong - I have opinions about translations, and personal recommendations about the best translations for people in different situations (age, education, knowledge of the Bible, etc.). There are some I would likely never recommend. But I don't think it's healthy for people to start doubting whether the Bible they're reading is the word of God, and I don't want to every say anything that would inadvertently undermine someone's faith. So I'm perfectly comfortable saying easier to read, hard to understand, communicates well, out-of-date, etc. I just don't want to trash a translation that's helping a brother or sister and undermine their trust in God.
Hi EastTN,
Thank you for the clarification, and I think you raise a very good point.
0 -
EastTN said:
Please don't get me wrong - I have opinions about translations, and personal recommendations about the best translations for people in different situations
Then there are those of us who love a translation for one or two quirks. I love the original Jerusalem Bible for its translation of Ps 4 and its uncommon decision on where to place a phrase. I love the Jewish Publication Society's more recent edition for its translation fo Gen 1:1 which doesn't imply the deuterocanonical ex nihilo so often embedded. I love the Community Bible for its version of Ps.23 read at several funerals in the 70's and 80's ... I don't have any favorite Bible which isn't marked with some wonderful and uncommon translation choice.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
