… is up on Biblegateway.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201&version=NIV
Is there a plan to get this on Logos any time soon? It would be great if we could have an Anglicised version available as well (which we didn't get with the TNIV).
Hi Murray
This has been discussed in a couple of threads recently - http://community.logos.com/forums/t/24932.aspx and http://community.logos.com/forums/p/21050/157774.aspx.
In http://community.logos.com/forums/p/24932/184976.aspx#184976, Alan refers to an Anglicised version.
I haven't seen anything from Logos as to when / if this will be available.
Graham
Is anyone aware of whether or not Zondervan has released a detailed description of the changes they have made to the NIV?
Zondervan are the North American publisher but have nothing to do with the actual translation.
For notes from the translation committee see http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/
Thanks for that link. Very informative details - gives me a bit more confidence in the NIV 2011.
Donnie
Here are some changes they HAVEN'T made.
http://awilum.com/?p=1449
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/niv-2011/
Better link- Collection of a lot of responses and analysis.
http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/niv-around-the-blogosphere/
To Whom It May Concern at Logos,
If I ever cite any iteration of the NIV, it is the 1984 NIV, and I have recently begun denoting it as such (I have memorized all of Ps. 119, Malachi, Mark, Romans, Titus, and James in the 1984 NIV. I hated the TNIV, and having reviewed the 2010 NIV don't like that much better--this is largely due to the changes in gender language).
I know the 2010 NIV will be available in Logos at some point, which is fine. The reason I'm posting now is to present my plea for the 1984 NIV to remain in my software. I doubt I'm the only one who will wish to cite that edition of the NIV in years to come. Perhaps it could just be designated '1984 NIV' or 'NIV--1984.'
I know: theoretically we've all paid for the older edition, so you can't take it away. But stranger things have happened in my life, and I thought it might be prudent to get a response from someone 'in the know.' [;)]
Thanks!
UPDATE: I now see Todd hoping for the same thing here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/25763/190322.aspx#190322 but I would still appreciate a response....
(I have memorized all of Ps. 119, Malachi, Mark, Romans, Titus, and James in the 1984 NIV.
That is my biggest complaint with all the versions updating and fine-tuning. I wish I had limited my memorization to one version over the years. When I start quoting I even butcher longer passages because I memorized them in KJV, NASB and maybe a third. My quoting ends up being a mixture of all the versions. It is worse than the updated words in a modernized hymnal. [8]
The reason I'm posting now is to present my plea for the 1984 NIV to remain in my software.
I'm no authority on this, but I can't imagine the 2011 NIV will supplant the 1984 NIV simply because too many churches and individuals will be using the 84 version for quite some time. The 84 NIV is still the most widely sold version in the U.S. To simply replace it, would be to invite discontent, something neither the translation committee, nor Zondervan (among others) is willing to risk, especially after the uproar caused by the TNIV.
But that's just an opinion. I'm right of course [;)], but it's still just an opinion.
I have a link on my blog if you're interested http://revdmarkstevens.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/updates-to-the-niv-2011-comparison-page/
The gentlemen to whose page I link has spent a lot of time comparing all the changes. It really is a great achievement.
I think over time the NIV 2011 will overtake the NIV 84 but it will take time. The 84 version and the TNIV will be pulled from sale so those whom want NIVs will have to buy the update. At the end of the day, most people wont care if it is an update. The 84 was itself and update of the original version.
I'm no authority on this, but I can't imagine the 2011 NIV will supplant the 1984 NIV simply because too many churches and individuals will be using the 84 version for quite some time
I agree, assuming that there is not the same sort of backlash as the TNIV suffered, the transition will take years... It took me 10 years to get a hardcopy 1995 NASB and another 3 before I started using it as my 'preaching' Bible. There are a lot of NIV users out there any very few will be changing simply because a new version is available as there current Bible will still have some mileage left in it.
It appears that many of the changes simply incorporates the TNIV translation:
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/most_changed_verses.html
It appears that many of the changes simply incorporates the TNIV translation: http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/most_changed_verses.html
It does but as I noticed this morning it also reverts to the original 84 version at many points also.
very few will be changing simply because a new version is available as there current Bible will still have some mileage left in it.
Just slightly off-topic here but you sparked my memory;
My wife has two Bibles (a heavy, large print one for daily use and a smaller one for church.) Every year I buy her a new Bible for daily reading because she literally wears out her "daily" Bible. Last January I bought her the "Bible Study" base package in Logos. It took a few months to convince her that computer based Bible study is a good thing. She uses her Logos every day (several times a day) and her "daily reading" Bible is still in good condition. I wonder how long the large Bible will last and how soon I will have to replace her netbook.
Incidentally, with all the versions available to her she still reads KJV. Though she is impressed with the Reverse Interlinears.
I am a PK. When I graduated from high school I got a KJV Thompson Chain Reference Bible for graduation. When I started college (1971) and began to study Greek, I began to mark up my KJV so that it would line up with the Greek text I was using. Then I discovered the NASB. I could study/read it without marking it all up, because in my opinion, it was already a good translation of the text. Then when I went to seminary one of my professors was on the translating team of the NIV and I discovered a translation geared for public/speed reading, which I have used since, as my carry around paper Bible, but still using NASB (or ESV) for study. With the introduction of the new NIV, I fear if I use, it I will be going back 40 years and have a Bible I will have to mark up to get it to agree (in my opinion) with the Greek text. I think I'll pass.
When I graduated from high school I got a KJV Thompson Chain Reference Bible for graduation. When I started college (1971) and began to study Greek, I began to mark up my KJV so that it would line up with the Greek text I was using. Then I discovered the NASB. I could study/read it without marking it all up, because in my opinion, it was already a good translation of the text.
And what Greek text were you using to mark up your Bible?
[Just asking if Jerry is aware of the Greek versions controversy - not trying to resolve it]
And what Greek text were you using to mark up your Bible? [Just asking if Jerry is aware of the Greek versions controversy - not trying to resolve it]
Of course Jerry was using the inspired one! [:D] [:#]
Mark - I didn't actually spend a lot of time comparing all the changes as such, but I did spend a lot of time writing the computer program that does it! I have only been to sleep for about 4-5 hours a night since Monday, but I think it's mostly done now!
Edwin - Just so you know, there are now pages instead of just the previous one you linked to:
The top 500 most changed verses (NIV1984 to NIV2011):
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/most_changed_verses_niv1984.html
The top 500 most changed verses (TNIV to NIV2011)
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/most_changed_verses_tniv.html
There are some statistics on the front page you might like to look at:
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/
Particularly:
Compared to the NIV1984: 19030 verses (61.1%) are the same, and 12055 verses (38.8%) differ.
Compared to the TNIV: 28595 verses (91.9%) are the same, and 2490 verses (8.0%) differ.
Mark - You can see a complete list of the places where it reverts to the NIV1984 (over the TNIV) here:
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/uses_niv1984_text.html
Along with a complete list of the places where it uses novel text (not found in the TNIV or NIV1984):
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/new_text_in_niv2011.html
Overall it uses the TNIV text over the NIV1984 text in 9736 verses (31.3% of verses).
Awesomely Cool! [Y] [H] I am marking this post as a favorite. Thank you. [C]
NIV 2011 -- Ezek. 33:12 (verse most changed from NIV 1984) has the following gaff:
"The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous."
Classic grade school grammar mistake...tsk, tsk, tsk.
(We teachers have to represent.)
NIV 2011 -- Ezek. 33:12 (verse most changed from NIV 1984) has the following gaff: "The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous." Classic grade school grammar mistake...tsk, tsk, tsk. (We teachers have to represent.)
Question to the 'teacher(s)'? if you want to get rid of the He/She bit and if you do not 'know' if it is a he or a she what word do you use where the "they" is in the above quote? [is the rule One person => he/she one or more known persons => you one or more unknown persons => they ?]
[Yes, the older NIV says man / he rather then person / they]
The translation notes for the new NIV explain precisely why they did this, and I found the analysis they did on current English language usage very interesting. Language is not static. That said, I'm not sure I agree with the decision. But they have explained it.
It seems they are slightly stretching proper English usage to make it gender neutral. I believe I have heard English used this way. At the risk of sounding old fashioned, it seems to me that much of the English speaking Christian world uses the NIV, and may continue to use the new NIV. Therefore the gender neutral language is kind of being forced on us. I know we don't have to buy one. I know some feel this should have been done years ago. I am just saying that the ramifications of the committee decisions are far reaching.
The big translation problem comes from choosing between these two language decisions:
versus
The Federalist Papers were written for the "common man" (farmers & such.) Most high school graduates in the USA today cannot understand them. We have US Senators who don't use proper grammar. We have news anchors & other journalists who can't write, spell or speak. Theses facts do not bode well for the future of Bible translations based on English usage.
A tract can convey the Gospel message. If we have to keep dumbing down our translations we could dispense with translators entirely and go with "The Wordless Book."But wait! Even that has undergone a revision by Child Evangelism Fellowship.
Maybe we will have an the NIV version of the Wordless Book in 2024..........[6]
I'm not sure what to make of this response. The only thing I said that could be misconstrued, I suppose, is that language isn't static. That's just a statement of fact.
Anyone who knows me knows: a) I don't like any flavor of the NIV; b) I consider politically-correct motivated gender translation to be wrong; c) I hold to a very high view of Scripture, including inerrancy and the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs. For what it's worth, a fantastic book on the issue of functional vs. dynamic equivalence is "The Word of God In English" by Leland Ryken.
That doesn't mean I'm not open minded to valid reasons to improve English translations.
(Stumped...)
I'm not sure what to make of this response. The only thing I said that could be misconstrued, I suppose, is that language isn't static. That's just a statement of fact. Anyone who knows me knows: a) I don't like any flavor of the NIV; b) I consider politically-correct motivated gender translation to be wrong; c) I hold to a very high view of Scripture, including inerrancy and the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs. For what it's worth, a fantastic book on the issue of functional vs. dynamic equivalence is "The Word of God In English" by Leland Ryken. That doesn't mean I'm not open minded to valid reasons to improve English translations. (Stumped...) Donnie
I'm sorry Donnie. I am in agreement with your comments above and was only using the evolving "language usage" statement as a stepping stone for my little rant. I surely did not mean to denigrate your post in any way. My liberal friends think I am narrow-minded about Bible translations and my conservative friends think I am too accommodating. If I could manage to follow the Sermon on the Mount in any version, I would be a better disciple.
Please forgive me for being flippant using your post as a platform.[6]
Of course, The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill.
My $.02 ...
Of course, The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill. My $.02 ...
Hmm... that 2¢ might be a wooden nickel. [;)] Sorry, just following the analogy--my goal's not actually to offend.
I find it difficult to square 7:24-27 with any theory that the Sermon on the Mount was not actually intended for life in the Kingdom of God--for both the original hearers and us.
I'd recommend both Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship and Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy as practical explorations for implementing Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount into one's everyday experience.
The Federalist Papers were written for the "common man" (farmers & such.) Most high school graduates in the USA today cannot understand them.
I don't know if that is true. Why just the other day I walked by some teens sitting on a stoop, and the one said to the other
"You know, this idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event."
The Sermon On The Mount isn't really a proscription for believers but an elaboration of what the Law really means as a standard which the Jews couldn't fulfill.
That is precisely what bothers me about the CEF addition to the Wordless Book. By adding the Green page to represent "growth in the Christian life" it appears CEF is implying your good works will purchase your salvation.
If the only point of Bible study is to get saved, we really don't need the other 99%.
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV1984 Mal 2:16
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV2011 Mal 2:16
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV1984 Mal 2:16 16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV2011 Mal 2:16
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.
NIV2011 Mal 2:16
Joshua, you might want to check some commentaries to grasp why there is a difficulty in understanding the best way to translate this verse.
Whichever translation you end up deciding on, you need to at least be aware of the possibility of the other one.
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV1984 Mal 2:16 16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. NIV2011 Mal 2:16 Joshua, you might want to check some commentaries to grasp why there is a difficulty in understanding the best way to translate this verse. Whichever translation you end up deciding on, you need to at least be aware of the possibility of the other one.
I certainly understand why some have translated this verse another way, but this is more than just an update to the verse, it is a complete re-working of it. I find it strange that they broke completely from the original meaning of the 1984 translation. In essence, the 2011 translation committee is saying that the 1984 committee were wrong.
It is a complete revision, so there are a few verses that have been retanslated in this way based on current scholrship etc.
This isn't exactly correct is it? According to the analysis done here:
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison
It's really just a slight revision of the TNIV. What we've gotten here really isn't a NEW NIV, it's a Revised TNIV. It looks to me that since the TNIV didn't get the market penetration they wanted they've tried again by releasing it as a the new NIV (with some changes). According to the above site there is only 8% difference between the TNIV and the NIV 2011. That doesn't sound to me like a complete revision.
(from the site listed above)
A slight clarification: That's 7.5% of verses in the NIV2011 that have text different from the TNIV or NIV1984. In 0.6% of cases the text is 'reverted' to the same text as the NIV1984.
Included in that 7.5% are potentially very minor changes (like a change of punctuation). So while 7.5% of verses are different from both previous versions, it doesn't necessarily mean the changes are major.
John Dyer's image is very helpful:
http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/niv-verse-comparison.png
This isn't exactly correct is it?
In comparison to the NIV84 ... i.e. in quite a few verses the translation is different from the NIV84 ...
This isn't exactly correct is it? In comparison to the NIV84 ... i.e. in quite a few verses the translation is different from the NIV84 ...
Yes Jonathan. You are correct. I guess my point was that this really isn't something brand new... it really a tweaking of something we've already had the TNIV, which the market largely rejected). But you're right, compared to the NIV84, it is indeed a major revision.
