After hearing more about the changes to NIV 2011, I researched which version of NIV I have in my Logos package. I know it was updated a little while ago.
Example article: http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf
I'd like to go back to the older version of the NIV, is there a way to do so? Can someone help me out with this?
thanks
Peace, Jacques! Should I say, "Frère Jacques"??? eh???
In your post you mentioned that you'd like to "go back" to the older version of the NIV. Well, the good news is that if you've ever had the 1984 NIV in Logos or Libronix, you qualify to use it in the future.
Otherwise, bad news. The 1984 NIV is no longer available, either through Logos or in print.
There are a couple of post that you might search for concerning the possibility of buying it from a 3rd party, but even so, this is hardly ever available...
So, big question??? Have you ever had the license from Logos???
As a Canadian, we love the song : Frère Jacques (Canada is officially bi-lingual -- French and English! *smile*)
The original French version of the song is as follows:
Frère Jacques, frère Jacques, Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous? Sonnez les matines! Sonnez les matines! Ding, dang, dong. Ding, dang, dong.
The song is traditionally translated into English as:
Are you sleeping, are you sleeping, Brother John? Brother John? Morning bells are ringing! Morning bells are ringing! Ding, dang, dong. Ding, dang, dong.
A more literal translation of the French lyrics would be:
Brother Jacob, brother Jacob Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Ring the morning bells! Ring the morning bells! Ding, dang, dong. Ding, dang, dong.
The translation of "Frère" would be "Friar" in this case, because this song is about Jacques, a religious monk. In English the word Friar is probably derived from the French word frère ("brother" in English), as French was still widely used in official circles in England during the 13th century when the four great orders of Friars started. The French word frère in turn comes from the Latin word frater (which also means "brother").
The Matins mentioned in the literal translation refers to the midnight or very early morning prayers that a monk would be expected to wake for.
After hearing more about the changes to NIV 2011, I researched which version of NIV I have in my Logos package. I know it was updated a little while ago. Example article: http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf I'd like to go back to the older version of the NIV, is there a way to do so? Can someone help me out with this? thanks
Two points:
First, the decision to no longer allow sales of the NIV84 was made by the Biblica (formerly the Committee on Bible Translation - not to be confused with Logos' website Biblia.com). I encourage you to write them and ask that they allow the NIV84 to be sold again. You can do that by clicking here and filling in the appropriate fields.
Second, the Grudem/Poythress article is riddled with poor argumentation, IMHO, though I fear that pointing out specifics will only generate a pointless discussion. Let me suggest that for fairness that you also read the explanation for the changes at the Biblica web site here.
Many were disappointed in the decision to force the 2011 gender neutral version on the large user base that had been built upon the previous 1984 translation.
Did you have the NIV in your Logos system prior to 2011? If you did, it will still be there. If not, you will have to find a copy of it.
While you can still grab copies of the 1984 translation in print online, the software is getting more difficult to locate. What you need to find is an older retail boxed CD/DVD in Libronix format. If you set up a watch on ebay you can find used libronix packages. Then you can call Logos to transfer your license. I believe they charge a fee for that.
I found nothing for Logos on Amazon just now, but they do have a used copy of Bibleworks 7 for $200. You could purchase that and have the license transferred. BW7 included NIV 1984, as did BW8. BW9 like Logos, does not come with it unless you had licensed it in a previous version.
Another alternative of course is to switch translations. Some of the newer ones are very good. The HCSB and NET are two that you might want to consider. But the 1984 NIV was definitely the goose that laid the golden egg for Zondervan (or whatever they are calling themselves these days). And they definitely killed it. Sad.
Yes the gender neutrality issue is a controversial one. But if a person is willing to accept it in their translation, then they really need to weigh the NRSV, which is arguably a better translation than the 2011 NIV ... but was essentially rejected over gender issues.
No matter the side you take in the gender debate itself, wouldn't we all have to agree that the Trojan horse method used by Zondervan / (un)biblica was the wrong way to do it? There are still lots of people who want to purchase the 1984 NIV and can't.
No matter the side you take in the gender debate itself, wouldn't we all have to agree that the Trojan horse method used by Zondervan / (un)biblica was the wrong way to do it?
I don't think caricatures help honest debate. I do not object to honest debate, on this issue but in fact welcome it--just not in these forums. (Please.)
Further, there is no indication that Zondervan was involved in any way with the translation decisions. Biblica is independent of Zondervan, owns all the copyrights to the NIV, and only licenses Zondervan to publish the NIV (in the US, overseas there are other companies licensed to publish the NIV).
There are still lots of people who want to purchase the 1984 NIV and can't.
This is lamentable. I have protested to Biblica, and hope you have too.
I have protested to Biblica, and hope you have too.
My form of protest was to stock up on 1984 NIV Bibles. I have enough to last me a lifetime and to give away a few if the need arises. [H]
The best answer is to order this. It is the '84 NIV, just the one used in the UK. But it's basically what you want. And I'd order quick as I have no idea how long it will be available in Logos.
At the risk of going off topic, there are significant differences between the NRSV and the 2011 NIV, particularly with regard to translating the Old Testament that may be significant to many. Should the Hebrew Bible be translated with an eye on how it is interpreted in the New Testament? NIV 2011 says yes. NRSV - not so much. While this makes the NRSV quite useful (and even valuable) for study, I can certainly understand why many do not want this for their primary translation. It is not just gender language...
Yes Ken I understand. There were other issues, but the only one I personally cared about was the gender issue. The NRSV is actually a much better reading translation that the ESV. They are both revisions of the RSV, but one of them was really done well, and the other appears to have been hastily thrown together and rushed to print. Not bashing the ESV, but I think a lot of its popularity is at least a bit due to backlash against the feminist agenda. I wish I could get the NRSV in an ESV type of gender policy [:D]
The issue you mention I think was about one verse and one word wasn't it? The word translated "virgin" in Isaiah?
As I recall, it was the RSV that took the heat for this. The NRSV being a revision of the RSV (as is the ESV), did not bow to political pressure and change it.
The reason is simple but does not seem to be widely understood. A large portion of the quotations in the New Testament come from the Greek Septuagint. I believe it is well over half of them. The Greek word translated into English means virgin.
Now some believe that because the result of translation from Hebrew to Greek and then to English results in the English word "virgin", that the Hebrew should be revised to a different word that means "virgin". While I agree with the theology they are attempting to support, isn't the translators job to faithfully translate the Hebrew directly into English? Were the translators biased against the virgin birth? Or were they more faithful to the Hebrew text than some other translators? You can clearly see that the translators were not against the virgin birth, because in the New Testament they followed the same policy ... they faithfully translated the Greek into the target language (English).
A similar desire is seen on the part of those with a KJV-only viewpoint ... they believe that The Greek and Hebrew should be updated to reflect the English contained in the 1611 KJV. They do not seem to understand the basic principals of translation.
But this shows how tradition influences peoples thoughts about translation. Even erroneous renderings, once established as "correct", will encounter resistance when anyone attempts to change them. Just my 2 cents worth here [:D] The gender neutrality stuff really doesn't bother me much until it affects language about God. Maybe I have a bit of traditional resistance in me too. I really should learn Greek
I have protested to Biblica, and hope you have too. My form of protest was to stock up on 1984 NIV Bibles. I have enough to last me a lifetime and to give away a few if the need arises.
My form of protest was to stock up on 1984 NIV Bibles. I have enough to last me a lifetime and to give away a few if the need arises.
Even if you have enough Bibles to last your lifetime it has been made virtually impossible to do a Bible study with others using the NIV 1984. Certainly the publisher's decision has forced people to use another version. They are hoping that it will be NIV 2011 but I think many have used this opportunity to make the jump to another version altogether.
I feel the most for Churches that have made large investments in pew Bibles for their Churches because they want people to have the same version but, as time goes, they will have to purchase an entirely new set to accomplish their purpose once some are lost or need replacement or the Church expands.
Yes Ken I understand. There were other issues, but the only one I personally cared about was the gender issue. The NRSV is actually a much better reading translation that the ESV. They are both revisions of the RSV, but one of them was really done well, and the other appears to have been hastily thrown together and rushed to print. Not bashing the ESV, but I think a lot of its popularity is at least a bit due to backlash against the feminist agenda. I wish I could get the NRSV in an ESV type of gender policy The issue you mention I think was about one verse and one word wasn't it? The word translated "virgin" in Isaiah?
Yes Ken I understand. There were other issues, but the only one I personally cared about was the gender issue. The NRSV is actually a much better reading translation that the ESV. They are both revisions of the RSV, but one of them was really done well, and the other appears to have been hastily thrown together and rushed to print. Not bashing the ESV, but I think a lot of its popularity is at least a bit due to backlash against the feminist agenda. I wish I could get the NRSV in an ESV type of gender policy
Full Disclosure mode=on
I am a member of a denomination which uses ESV as its primary bible version, but grew up and was educated in one which used RSV and then NRSV. I probably have read and studied the RSV, NRSV, and Good News Bible more than the ESV, which is now my "primary" bible.
At multiple times I have found a passage in the ESV to be clucky "biblish". Whenever I find this and compare it with the NRSV, the NRSV seems to have a better English rendering, in spite of the ESV being updated twice since its initial release. I can certainly understand why you would describe it as "hastily thrown together". It is (still) not fully satisfying.
But the issues with the NRSV go beyond just the one verse. Now - don't get me wrong - there are valid historical reasons for the NRSV renderings, and so I by no means am someone who wants to burn it as a false bible. In fact, I would rate the NRSV as the best English translation at articulating the faith of Ancient Israel and Judah into English, and greatly value it for this.
But from the 2nd verse, it is obvious that the NRSV is, in effect, warning us to be careful about reading our Christianity into the Old Testament. It is a wind from God over the waters instead of the Spirit of God. The Hebrew, I understand, can be translated either way. As a Trinitarian Christian, I do believe that the fracture in God we see through Jesus (esp. on the cross), leading us to creatively reinterpret monotheism, has roots in what came before. I fully know not all see it. I know that it is debatable until the Kingdom comes in its fullness. But I cannot believe it is not THERE.
Likewise, in the Psalms, there is a difference between praying them knowing that God's representative person has come in Jesus, and so the Blessed one spoken of in Ps 1.1 is Jesus who invites us alienated people into his relationship with god, versus seeing Psalm 1 as a prayer just confidently saying how "happy" are we who follow the law of God as opposed to the nations.
In general, the NRSV seems to try to take the Christian lens off. I value it for this - we need to be reminded that we are the wild ones grafted into Salvation History. But this very feature also limits its usefulness for both public and private prayer and worship. It is not just Isaiah 7.14, even if that is an example.
SDG
Ken McGuire
Thanks for sharing Ken. The little bit of knowledge I have is just from reading, I have not used the NRSV for any length of time. Don't have the first hand experience that you do. I started out with the KJV. Later on tried to move to the NKJV, and found that difficult. Over the years I have tried quite a few translations. NASB, ESV, and lately the 1984 NIV. Briefly looked recently at the HCSB and was impressed at how well the English flows for what is a formal equivalence translation.
It used to be hard to choose because there were limited choices. Now there are almost too many choices. Belonging to a church that uses a particular version makes the decision much easier.
By the way, to the OP if you are still reading I know we kinda got off topic ... Gary Osborne's answer is the best. I don't think you are going to beat that $10 price.
The best answer is to order this. It is the '84 NIV, just the one used in the UK.
It has been updated twice since I bought it in February, the first one fixing the labelling of its footnotes. It does not have a reverse interlinear, though.
Thread => NIV Question includes a screen shot:
Keep Smiling [:)]
I picked up the older NIV when I purchased Series X scholars edition off the online giant that starts with an A.
There was one left... I think they wanted 200$?
I'm pretty sure this isn't possible. For example, I have the NIV 1984 for Accordance; switched to Logos; but was unable to transfer my NIV 1984 license to Logos (according to my sales rep). If there's a way to do this, I'd love to hear about it!
I agree. What can be done (not sure if it is legal or not - different question) is to make a PB from BW's or Accordance's version of the NIV 1984.
Or look around eBay or Craigslist, c'est ça. This post has some relevant info.
I guess my post may have been confusing. I was not suggesting that you could transfer a license of the NIV for BW into Logos. I was suggesting a way that you could have a legal license for the 1984 NIV *in BW*.
But now that this has come up, I do think it a crime against the end user to charge a person for what is essentially the same license multiple times. For example, I have paid for the use of the 1984 NIV in 3 different software packages.
I do think it a crime against the end user to charge a person for what is essentially the same license multiple times
Really? Is it a crime to charge someone three different times to see a movie in the theatre three different times?
I do think it a crime against the end user to charge a person for what is essentially the same license multiple times Really? Is it a crime to charge someone three different times to see a movie in the theatre three different times?
My own personal opinion – Since the NIV 1984 and TNIV are no longer available for purchase, Biblica (or Logos) really should figure out a way to allow users who already own a digital license for these versions of the Bible to 'transfer' that license to another software program (i.e. from Accordance to Logos or vice-versa). At the very least, they should allow those of us who own these versions already a way of re-purchasing them in another software if we so choose. Even though I wouldn't be happy about it, I'd gladly pay to be able to buy NIV 1984 and TNIV for Logos since, otherwise, I have to continue using two different software programs just to get at these translations.
The way Biblica is handling this seems a bit silly to me. For goodness sake, they could even require that, for Logos to sell the NIV84 and TNIV to a user with a digital license elsewhere means that the user must also purchase the NIV11. It'd still be a better option than forcing people who want to use the non-Anglicized version of NIV84 to have to use two software programs just because you didn't switch software early enough in the transition process.
The way Biblica is handling this seems a bit silly to me.
I agree. I think Biblica should make the NIV84 available for purchase to anyone... I understand why they don't want to, but agree that it is "silly." I think the least objectionable (to Biblica) and most reasonable solution would be for the NIV84 to be made available in base packages again. This would still have the effect of driving sales towards the NIV11 (since it would still be unavailable for the masses), but would allow Pastor's and Scholars the ability to access the NIV for comparative and historical reasons. Even if Pastor's continued to preach from the NIV84, congregants would have no choice but to purchase a NIV11 when it was time to update. It would be better for Biblica for Pastors to continue preaching from the NIV84, than for them to switch to the ESV or other translation.
FYI - My objection above was to the word "crime." Hopefully John was speaking figuratively. [;)]
Logos ... really should figure out a way to allow users who already own a digital license for these versions of the Bible to 'transfer' that license to another software program (i.e. from Accordance to Logos or vice-versa). At the very least, they should allow those of us who own these versions already a way of re-purchasing them in another software if we so choose. Even though I wouldn't be happy about it, I'd gladly pay to be able to buy NIV 1984 and TNIV for Logos since, otherwise, I have to continue using two different software programs just to get at these translations.
You need to get this straight: Logos' hands are tied. They can't do anything about the situation.
If Logos were to follow your suggestion, they would expose themselves to massive legal liability, not to mention a lock-out from Zondervan and other publishing giants.
If you had entered into a legal contract which gave you the right to display the movie on one screen for viewing purposes, then to charge you again would be double charging you. You did not pay to license rights to view a movie, you paid an admission fee to enter a theater.
Apples to Oranges my friend [H]
My own personal opinion – Since the NIV 1984 and TNIV are no longer available for purchase, Biblica (or Logos) really should figure out a way to allow users who already own a digital license for these versions of the Bible to 'transfer' that license to another software program (i.e. from Accordance to Logos or vice-versa). At the very least, they should allow those of us who own these versions already a way of re-purchasing them in another software if we so choose. Even though I wouldn't be happy about it, I'd gladly pay to be able to buy NIV 1984 and TNIV for Logos since, otherwise, I have to continue using two different software programs just to get at these translations. The way Biblica is handling this seems a bit silly to me. For goodness sake, they could even require that, for Logos to sell the NIV84 and TNIV to a user with a digital license elsewhere means that the user must also purchase the NIV11. It'd still be a better option than forcing people who want to use the non-Anglicized version of NIV84 to have to use two software programs just because you didn't switch software early enough in the transition process.
I agree Adam. But all the software companies have been forced into this. Most of them have allowed for previously licensed copies to still be viewed, but no new copies may be sold ... due to the publishers desire to use the monopoly position of the older NIV in order to catapult the gender principles in the TNIV (which were soundly rejected by evangelicals) into a top spot in the Bible publishing hierarchy.
Evangelicals rejected the TNIV and stuck with the 1984 NIV. So this time, they made sure there was no 1984 NIV.
The good news is that there are many very good alternatives today. And sticking with the 1984 NIV is still a viable alternative on an individual level. You can still buy it in print if you look hard enough.
If anyone really needs the NIV84 and TNIV, there is a very recent post over at the StillTruth forums that may be of help:
http://www.stilltruth.com/forums/logos-bible-software/great-finds
key thing about the new NIV is it is tied into the reverse interlinear and word studies.
Hello Jacques,
Having just upgraded to Logos 5.1. I'm still learning to use this wonderful software!
I've had the privilege of studying/researching the various Bible versions over the past few years, and I learned a few things. While the NIV is the best translation on the state of the dead--I do not recommend it as a study Bible all by itself. The NIV (and many modern versions) is based upon 2 manuscripts, Sainiticus and the Vaticanus--both found hundreds of years ago, (one in a trash can) that were written over cross-outs, and with many deletions. Then, Hort and Westcott, who are well known for creating the Ghostly Guild, attended seances for many years, proceeded to change words, added, and deleted words in these two manuscripts, under commission from the Church of England.The NIV is missing over 6,000 words which you will find there in the Majority Text, which is essentially 1900 extant manuscripts all in agreement, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, I found that many vital words had been changed, which serve to change Bible doctrines especially that downgrade the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Here is a small sample from my article on Bible versions:
Matthew 5:44
But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you (AKJV, same as the KJV).
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (NIV).
These words are omitted by the NIV; “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” and, “which spitefully use you.” Satan prefers that we do not bless and do good to those that curse us, and hate us. Jesus, our example blessed the ones who hated Him—even dying for the sins of these who hated Him and nailed Him to the cruel cross.
Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost (AKJV).
NIV: Completely gone. The chapter goes from vs. 10 to vs. 12.
Satan and his followers, both evil angels and men, do not accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to save lost sinners. They prefer that all others do not know this truth as well.Please do not infer or suggest that I believe that those who use the NIV are followers of Satan. I am addressing issues concerning Bible versions--not any person.
(http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2012/07/subtle-changes-in-gods-holy-word.html)
You need to get this straight: Logos' hands are tied. They can't do anything about the situation. If Logos were to follow your suggestion, they would expose themselves to massive legal liability, not to mention a lock-out from Zondervan and other publishing giants.
Lee – you may want to read what I wrote again. I said, quite specifically, that Biblica (or Logos) should look into this. Biblica is, clearly, the culprit here, not Logos, though I can't imagine there's "massive legal liability" to be had unless Biblica has made it clear to Logos that they cannot, under any circumstances, allow people to have the NIV84 and/or TNIV even if they own it for another product. (Which may be the case; Biblica has never said so publicly as far as I know.) The transition statement from Biblica made it very clear that the NIV84 and TNIV wouldn't be available for purchase anymore, but not necessarily that licenses couldn't be transferred; thus the reason I wonder whether either organization could figure out a way forward for those of us who own licenses on different software platforms.
Personally, I want access to the NIV84 and TNIV in Logos because these were the translations I used for years and years and years – growing up, in college, after college. I don't use them for preaching anymore (because no one can buy them!), but would like to have them in my software of choice for the sake of still being able to read them and, quite frankly, to search them. When I can't remember a particular reference and have to search the Bible for it, more than half the time I still can't find it quickly because the words I'm remembering are in a translation I don't have access to in Logos anymore.
It's a sad situation. Here's hoping Biblica will remedy it.
Much of the stuff that remains is listed as LIbronix, not Logos. Some (but little) ebible stuff remains as well.
The British version of NIV 1984 is here
http://www.logos.com/product/29979/the-holy-bible-new-international-version-anglicised
Not much different to US version, some words, some spelling.
*Not linked to interlinear.
P A
Well it looks like Gail Riplinger still has at least one fan. If the publishers of the NIV were satanic and the NIV was their weapon, didn't they shoot themselves in the foot by taking it off the market? [6]
You need to get this straight: Logos' hands are tied. They can't do anything about the situation. If Logos were to follow your suggestion, they would expose themselves to massive legal liability, not to mention a lock-out from Zondervan and other publishing giants. Lee – you may want to read what I wrote again. I said, quite specifically, that Biblica (or Logos) should look into this. Biblica is, clearly, the culprit here, not Logos, though I can't imagine there's "massive legal liability" to be had unless Biblica has made it clear to Logos that they cannot, under any circumstances, allow people to have the NIV84 and/or TNIV even if they own it for another product. (Which may be the case; Biblica has never said so publicly as far as I know.) The transition statement from Biblica made it very clear that the NIV84 and TNIV wouldn't be available for purchase anymore, but not necessarily that licenses couldn't be transferred; thus the reason I wonder whether either organization could figure out a way forward for those of us who own licenses on different software platforms.
Martha (or Mary) should cook the chicken before it turns bad.[I'm just saying that Martha's being lazy! Of course, I just happened to mention Mary because they are sisters, and because this is a forum about Mary. No, I am implying absolutely nothing about Mary.]
You may want to read what you actually write.
You can't imagine "massive legal liability" if Logos gives free licences or nominal upgrade licences or institutes some novel scheme to allow NIV84 licencees in other software packages to have the same licence in Logos ... "unless Biblica has made it clear to Logos that they cannot, under any circumstances, allow people to have the NIV84 and/or TNIV even if they own it for another product"?
Quite obviously, there's something about contract law, licensing arrangements and practical business in general that you and I will hold very different views about. So I'll stop here.
The publishers would not have this information..even if they did, I doubt it would matter to them.NIV Bibles are still on the market.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Satan began his attack on God's Word by misrepresenting what God had said, to Eve,"You shall NOT surely die."
Those who really desire to know/understand God's Word, will have it made plain to them by the Eternal One Himself. Changing His Words is a very serious matter indeed
The NIV is missing over 6,000 words which you will find there in the Majority Text...
This discussion really is outside the guidelines for these forums. These forums exist to discuss Logos Bible software. There are other places to discuss this, and I'm sure there are folks with strong feelings on both sides. On these forums, such discussions have rarely proved productive as most folks here are already well-versed in the various discussion points and have made up their minds.
Please feel free to discuss Logos software, or ask for help in using it.
The NIV is missing over 6,000 words which you will find there in the Majority Text... This discussion really is outside the guidelines for these forums. These forums exist to discuss Logos Bible software. There are other places to discuss this, and I'm sure there are folks with strong feelings on both sides. On these forums, such discussions have rarely proved productive as most folks here are already well-versed in the various discussion points and have made up their minds. Please feel free to discuss Logos software, or ask for help in using it.
Thanks everyone for the very useful and informative comments!
I ended up on the phone with Logos, just finished up a moment ago. It turns out I bought in April 2011, which was after the changes have already been made.
I asked for the NIV84 complimentary, the first representative said that would be alright - and that someone in another department would take care of me. I was sent to Sales, and was told they would not be able to comp it.
Oh well, again - thanks for the great posts and discussions everyone. Learned quite a bit, as these changes have just recently come to my attention...
I love a happy ending!
47 Save us, O Lord our God,
and gather us from among the nations,
that we may give thanks to your holy name
and glory in your praise.
48 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting!
And let all the people say, “Amen!”
Praise the Lord!
And they all switched to the HCSB and lived happily ever after [:)]
Post was later edited. Looks like I spoke too soon. Sorry.
