Please add the 1984 NIV. Unfortunately, the only NIV available is the 2011 Zondervan version, with it's gender neutralized approach to bible translation.
They had it. As I understand it Zondervan doesn't allow it to be sold anymore.
That would be very disappointing. My prefered translation is the NIV, and out of 1861 resources in my Logos library, the only one that is useless is the NIV bible. I'm having to stick to my 1984 NIV Study Bible.
Welcome [:D]
Prior to KF Base Packages, Logos included 1984 NIV => New KF Base Packages
Noticed 1984 NIV product page is not currently available on Logos.com, not know if Logos Sales => http://www.logos.com/about/contact can help.
For product suggestions, Logos has Suggestions forum (user discussion) and email => http://www.logos.com/about/contact
Keep Smiling [:)]
Thanks for the reply and pointing me in the direction of the suggestions forum.
Also changed my preferred bible in Logos to KJV. Looks like Zondervan is going to make me a KJV lover.
Smiling in Afghanistan.[:D]
out of 1861 resources in my Logos library, the only one that is useless is the NIV bible
Then you're extremely lucky! I'm happy if I can use about 10% of the package contents.
You might give the ISV a try. People here have been remarking about what a good translation it is, readable and up-to-date in use of English language, yet faithful to the original languages and conservative.
ESV is another good one for people who don't like the NIV anymore because of the gender neutral language issue.
Prior to KF Base Packages, Logos included 1984 NIV => New KF Base Packages Noticed 1984 NIV product page is not currently available on Logos.com
Noticed 1984 NIV product page is not currently available on Logos.com
If you go there, you'll see that the page claims that NIV 1984 is still part of an SDA commentary set as well as of the full-size SESB package:
Please read the product page
did not see any Bibles listed there for the SDA set
product page for SESB just says NIV with out the year listed
[[I vote for dumping all versions of the NIV - ESV is good. So is the KJV or the DR. Just figure out if the Textual Critics are correct or don't know what they are talking about]]
Me neither, but we discussed NIV1984 in a number of prior threads (sometimes related to the missing RI when bought separately or through either the SDA set or SESB) - I recall someone claiming he got his NIV 1984 through this one. Maybe it's an oversight or typo on the page (seems they have the Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology twice). Maybe it was included in the former Libronix CD-ROM edition (which needs to run standalone and therefore requires a bible to be useful) and they took it out for the downloadable product.
I know for certain that NIV 1984 was included in SESB CD-ROM edition. It may well be that Logos makes a silent update to NIV 2011 for the downloadable product, however, (I speculate in this direction in my comments regarding SESB in this thread: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/47272.aspx ) but so far I assume the NIV product page to be valid.
I vote for dumping all versions of the NIV - ESV is good. So is the KJV or the DR.
Actually these three are very different translations. NIV 1984 was my first English-language bible and the NIV Study Bible is really outstanding.
Thus I can fully understand users wanting NIV 1984 (or any other specific version) if they are teaching or preaching in a congregation that uses pew bibles or have a large base of students/congregants that bring this version to church or bible study groups. I also understand those who refuse to change a version they have memorized by heart, even if the new or other bible was either "better" according to someone's standard or "the same anyway" - no, ain't so.
I got somewhat used to ESV since it is the "standard" full-functionality bible in Logos - but any bible in English will be just a tool for me, as my "real life" is conducted in German and the "bible in my head" is the Luther 1976 edition.
The whole thing is sad, but inevitable. I mean when Zondervan came under the ownership of a for profit media conglomerate (one that by all accounts will stop at almost nothing to make a profit), and with the NIV being everywhere, you just know there had to be board room discussions of how to force encourage users to buy an updated print version.
Funny that this thread shows up today. I was looking for the NIV (1984) in Logos yesterday, and much to my chagrin, it was gone. I should have purchased a copy earlier when it was still available. Guess I'll stick to the ESV.
Updating the NIV was the worst idea since "New Coke". Zondervan has taken a product that dominated market share, and the result will be a far smaller market share with the new product, and smaller profits. Sad for us and dumb for them.
[Y]
...encourage users to buy an updated print version
This I get even though most people I know who have bought NIV print versions recently have managed to secure a 1984 edition. What I don't get is why they do not allow Logos to sell an NIV 1984 license to anyone who has a valid NIV 2011 license, this would surely be the most sensible approach and would generate extra revenue. Given how successful it has been the 1984 version is going to continue to be used by a lot of people for a long time.
Of course in ten years time some smart marketing person will determine that they should release the 1984 NIV as the NIV Classic...
Of course in ten years time some smart marketing person will determine that they should release the 1984 NIV as the NIV Classic.
This is a GREAT idea, and I hope it doesn't take the executives at Zondervan 10 years figure this out!
What I don't get is why they do not allow Logos to sell an NIV 1984 license to anyone who has a valid NIV 2011 license
I don't agree with this argument, but let me play devil's advocate with you…
If the purpose is to get more people to buy the updated translation (and it is), then they need to get the pastors & leaders to be using the updated translation. If someone is inclined to use the NIV, but the only available version is the 2011…
In other words, since the purpose is to get users to purchase the new translation, they don't really care if they tick off those who were not likely to purchase it in the first place. There will be a significant and loud minority who will be upset as shown in this thread, but Zondervan doesn't care. They just care about the sale of the new translation. Plain and simple.
Personally I would like a copy of the NIV 1984 for reference reasons. I do not intend to use the NIV 2011 as my "base text," but would use it when appropriate to help explain a passage to others.
This is a common way of stating the issue, and it's correct that this decision is out of the hands of Logos. However, there's a third player here: the Committee on Bible Translation. These are the actual owners of the NIV (not Zondervan), they contract with Zondervan as their exclusive publisher in the U.S. and Logos sub-contracts from them.
It's not clear to me that Zondervan corp., is the 'problem child' here. The more I think about this, the more I lean toward the CBT as the culprit. After all, they're not marketers, they're translators (Zondervan stands to lose a lot of money by no longer selling the NIV84). As translators who have put in hundreds of hours of work into their latest 'baby' they want that work to bear fruit. Given the lack of general acceptance of the TNIV, they don't want this work to be another 'flop' so they're 'forcing' acceptance by removing their strongest competitor: the NIV84 (again, they're not marketers, so they don't understand that this is not likely to work).
I have written both Zondervan and the CBT on this. If you haven't, I encourage you to do so.
For the CBT you can do that by asking a question here. (Note the "Ask a Question" link in the left column). There's something similar at the Zondervan site, but I'm too busy at the moment to look it up.
If the purpose is to get more people to buy the updated translation (and it is), then they need to get the pastors & leaders to be using the updated translation.
I get the purpose, I just think that the approach is flawed and unreasonable.
Flawed because you can't force people to like a specific translation of the Bible.
Unreasonable because the pastors and leaders that they are targeting will want access to the Bible that the congregation uses not the one that someone else thinks that they should buy.
BTW as a realist, and at the risk of contradicting myself, I expect that their strategy will be successful in as much as most people who buy a Bible will purchase the NIV 2011 because that is the one that the book shops will stock and most people who buy it will be oblivious to the concerns expressed in these forums about translation and sales approach. It will succeed based on the NIV brand name.
They had it. As I understand it Zondervan doesn't allow it to be sold anymore. This is a common way of stating the issue, and it's correct that this decision is out of the hands of Logos. However, there's a third player here: the Committee on Bible Translation. These are the actual owners of the NIV (not Zondervan), they contract with Zondervan as their exclusive publisher in the U.S. and Logos sub-contracts from them. It's not clear to me that Zondervan corp., is the 'problem child' here. The more I think about this, the more I lean toward the CBT as the culprit. After all, they're not marketers, they're translators (Zondervan stands to lose a lot of money by no longer selling the NIV84). As translators who have put in hundreds of hours of work into their latest 'baby' they want that work to bear fruit. Given the lack of general acceptance of the TNIV, they don't want this work to be another 'flop' so they're 'forcing' acceptance by removing their strongest competitor: the NIV84 (again, they're not marketers, so they don't understand that this is not likely to work). I have written both Zondervan and the CBT on this. If you haven't, I encourage you to do so. For the CBT you can do that by asking a question here. (Note the "Ask a Question" link in the left column). There's something similar at the Zondervan site, but I'm too busy at the moment to look it up.
I am far more suspicious of Zondervan than you. Ask anyone who bought some precious Zondervan resources in a Zondervan digital format over the past 15 years (and how they were treated by Zondervan with regard to migration those owned resources when Zondervan changed that digital platform) what they think about this publisher and its marketing tactics/policies. Ask throngs of Logos users that yearn for Zondervan publications that can only be bought in Logos if you buy a huge bundle, often for over $1,000. I could go on and on, but enough said is enough said. Given thier track record across the board, it is hard to find Zondervan just the innocent publisher here. You could be correct, but I find it hard to belive.
The real challenge with the 2011 NIV is that it's changes (and repercussions) are insidious. I understand the challenges of bible translation, having studied several languages. Often, direct transliteration is difficult. But, the translators have taken their approach further to make the bible more politically correct, and in the process have actually deviated from the original texts, intentionally changing gender from the masculine when it was clearly indicated.
Of course, I'm sure readers of this forum are very familiar with the changes, but what some people may not be aware is that the 2011 NIV retains 75% of the problems introduced in the TNIV.
What I look for in a bible translation is an accurate translation (as much as possible) from the available texts, and based upon sound scholarly research. And, Zondervan (not CBT) seems intent on pushing the 2011 NIV onto an already loyal base of Christians.
For an interesting read on the subject, see:
https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/jbmw%20spring%20%5C%2711%2016.burk%20only.pdf
Also changed my preferred bible in Logos to KJV. Looks like Zondervan is going to make me a KJV lover. You might give the ISV a try. People here have been remarking about what a good translation it is, readable and up-to-date in use of English language, yet faithful to the original languages and conservative. ESV is another good one for people who don't like the NIV anymore because of the gender neutral language issue.
Rosie, thanks for the ISV tip; I'm interested in checking it out now.
My background: grew up on the NIV84, used NASB through college, and I currently use ESV day-to-day.
I would recommend checking out the HCSB. It's great English, and they've worked hard to be accurate to the ideas of the original text (perhaps too hard, I think they always translate doulos as slave). Some have an issue with the way they translated Phil 2:7, but in my opinion, it could be misunderstood using pretty much any translation.
Bill
The real challenge with the 2011 NIV is that it's changes (and repercussions) are insidious.
Please, let's not debate the merits or demerits of this translation. That is not the purpose of these forums. While I don't agree with many of the charges brought against the TNIV or the NIV11, I don't think it's appropriate to challenge those charges on these forums.
Nor do I think it would be profitable.
[Y] +1 [:D]
Please, let's not debate the merits or demerits of this translation. That is not the purpose of these forums. While I don't agree with many of the charges brought against the TNIV or the NIV11, I don't think it's appropriate to challenge those charges on these forums. Nor do I think it would be profitable.
[Y] +1
You may want to consider reading the Translator Notes for the NIV 2011 before you come to your conclusion. One thing to consider is that Doug Moo, a committed complementarian, was on the translation committee, and he wrote the section of this document that discusses 1 Tim 2:12.
Please add the 1984 NIV. Unfortunately, the only NIV available is the 2011 Zondervan version, with it's gender neutralized approach to bible translation. You may want to consider reading the Translator Notes for the NIV 2011 before you come to your conclusion. One thing to consider is that Doug Moo, a committed complementarian, was on the translation committee, and he wrote the section of this document that discusses 1 Tim 2:12.
I'm already aware of Doug Moo's position on bible translation. You may want to read:
The more I think about this, the more I lean toward the CBT as the culprit. After all, they're not marketers, they're translators (Zondervan stands to lose a lot of money by no longer selling the NIV84).
This definitely makes more sense...
You may want to read: xxxxx.pdf
Terin,
No, I can't speak for William, but I don't want to read that same PDF again, and I don't like creating traffic for cbmw's site from the Logos forum. The leniency of Logos with regard to the fact that this forum is unmoderated shouldn't be misunderstood as if there were no rules. Most other forums would ban users with a low posting count who refer to the same weblink over and over again. Everybody can click your link the first time you posted it, or in the one-star review you put on the NIV 2011 product site, so please don't spam that link everytime you post.
I support the idea of "Allow Logos users their own choice regarding the bible version they want to use", and I am happy to see NIV84 in my library. Would that all Logos users could do so! And I understand the reasons why you personally prefer the 84 version to the 2011 editition. Fine. We don't want to discuss these issues in a broader way here (there are other forums for that).
Hopefully you'll understand that this forum is about Logos products, not about gender-driven agendas in any direction.
Mick
This is a really upsetting decision on the part of... well... whoever made the decision (Zondervan or CBT). I happen to like the 2011 edition of the NIV better (at least from everything I've researched so far) but Logos is research software, and removing the most popular Bible translation ever sold from their catalog leaves a gaping hole.
I sincerely hope that whatever decision was made to remove licensing for the NIV1984 is reversed.
You may want to read: xxxxx.pdf Terin, No, I can't speak for William, but I don't want to read that same PDF again, and I don't like creating traffic for cbmw's site from the Logos forum. The leniency of Logos with regard to the fact that this forum is unmoderated shouldn't be misunderstood as if there were no rules. Most other forums would ban users with a low posting count who refer to the same weblink over and over again. Everybody can click your link the first time you posted it, or in the one-star review you put on the NIV 2011 product site, so please don't spam that link everytime you post. I support the idea of "Allow Logos users their own choice regarding the bible version they want to use", and I am happy to see NIV84 in my library. Would that all Logos users could do so! And I understand the reasons why you personally prefer the 84 version to the 2011 editition. Fine. We don't want to discuss these issues in a broader way here (there are other forums for that). Hopefully you'll understand that this forum is about Logos products, not about gender-driven agendas in any direction. Mick
Your post is is misguided and inappropriate. If you look at the OP, you'll see I'm asking for the 1984 NIV to be added. I posted the CBMW link to William in response to his link for the Translator's Notes. I only posted it one other time earlier for those interested.
I don't appreciate the accusation that I'm "spamming" the link every time I post, or that I'm driving traffic to CBMW's website.
Please add the 1984 NIV. Unfortunately, the only NIV available is the 2011 Zondervan version, with it's gender neutralized approach to bible translation. You may want to consider reading the Translator Notes for the NIV 2011 before you come to your conclusion. One thing to consider is that Doug Moo, a committed complementarian, was on the translation committee, and he wrote the section of this document that discusses 1 Tim 2:12. I'm already aware of Doug Moo's position on bible translation. You may want to read: https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/jbmw%20spring%20%5C%2711%2016.burk%20only.pdf
Fair enough. The difference between these things, however, is the theological evaluation in the cbmw paper vs. how the translators were trying to stay true to the Greek. Moo has stated that he believes the Bible teaches complementarianism, and that you don't need 1 Tim 2:12 for that. And if you are complementarian, then 1 Tim 2:12 supports that position, whether you use 'exercise authority' or 'assume authority'. His point is that he is trying to give the best English expression for the given Greek. It sounds like scholars debate this. Any of Moo, Burk or Grudem (and many other researchers) have far more intelligence about this than you or I put together. I suppose the Translator Notes are trying to show you the heart behind the translation, while cbmw wants to assert theological interpretation to the translation. So we can probably pile up scholars against one another, all the while, you've already made your decision.
I would like to disclaim that I say this all as a complentarian, Grudem-fan who does not personally use the NIV anymore. In other posts I tried to encourage looking into some other translations since you can't have the NIV84 at the moment. I think it would be great if that decision were reversed. I'm right there with you.
I don't think the NIV2011 is terrible. It wouldn't be my first recommendation if someone were to ask my opinion regarding which translation to purchase. But I'm also not going to chide a Christian, especially a younger believer eager to read their Bible, for choosing an NIV at the book store.
For what it's worth, if you're going to go the KJV route, you may want to use the NKJV. Not only does it have modernized English, but they have good notes where they realized original KJV translation mistakes.
Email sent to Logos product suggestions with reference to this thread plus suggestion for NIV 1984 New Testament reverse interlinear (bit more expensive).
The whole issue pretty much points to a flaw with publishing licensing restriction over medium. Given the explosion of digital media and web content, both music recording and publishing industries have failed to see the handwriting on the wall. If a publisher pushes their choice by outmoded force, people can and will take their business elsewhere.
From my perspective this is a perfect example of why Logos 4 still rocks as the tool of choice for study. We don't have that problem on the desktop at all and Logos is very generous with us overall. Makes my life much easier.
Please forgive me if someone already solved your problem, looking through things i didn't see any clear answer. You can still buy it in a way…. But you will have to buy it on CD and that will give you the volume. http://www.cph.org/p-29-niv-concordia-self-study-cd-rom.aspx this is a very inexpensive way to purchase the NIV on Disk, This gives you the 1984 NIV and the Lutheran Adaptation of the NIV study Bible, and the Self Study Commentary.
-Dan
It's not clear to me that Zondervan corp., is the 'problem child' here. The more I think about this, the more I lean toward the CBT as the culprit
When Accordance pulled the 1984 NIV, they blamed "the publisher of the NIV: Biblica". The relationship between the Committee on Bible Translation [the translators], Biblica [the copyright holders], and Zondervan [the publishers] is explained here: http://www.thenivbible.com/translation/who-controls-niv-text/
Reading that page, it does seem that Zondervan are unlikely to be to blame.
I couldn't agree more! [Y]
Most of my churches have the NIV1984 edition, and despite being told that there are many 'better translations' out there - the truth is that firstly, many of us love this edition and have grown up with it and secondly (and the major issue) we can't afford to change as a church even if we wanted to. I know that the ESV is regarded as a more accurate and better translation but for many of us it just doesn't read as well for public worship. The NIV2011 is not a bad edition, but the original poster's comments about gender issues and political correctness are perfectly true making it less than ideal. As I said before we couldn't afford to change anyway, so someone please reverse this decision!
My Christian vocabulary does not allow me to properly express my opinion of the neutered NIV 2011.
[Y][Y][Y]
I used the link Mark posted above. I used the "Contact Us" page to email them my request to permit the likes of Olive Tree, Logos, Amazon etc to sell both the current and Niv 84 versions to anyone wishing to buy them.
For product suggestions, Logos has Suggestions forum (user discussion) and email => http://www.logos.com/about/contact Email sent to Logos product suggestions with reference to this thread plus suggestion for NIV 1984 New Testament reverse interlinear (bit more expensive). Keep Smiling
Keep Smiling
Quick update: It seems someone reacts to your mails [:)] - I just noticed that now the NIV 1984 product page shows three packages where it is contained (it's also part of the smaller SDA commentary set) and all of these three product pages now state explicitly that NIV 1984 is included.
Hope they follow your suggestion as well...
I just noticed that now the NIV 1984 product page shows three packages where it is contained (it's also part of the smaller SDA commentary set) and all of these three product pages now state explicitly that NIV 1984 is included.
NIV 1984 product page link => http://www.logos.com/product/8786/new-international-version shows the three packages (while NIV 1984 is individually not available).
Does anyone know if the "third-party" packages sold in Libronix format will add the NIV1984 to the resource folder? I am thinking of the older packages like Nelson's eBible collections and the various "Lifeworks" collections.
It seems to me the license you buy with the boxed sets would cover all content advertised on the outside of the box. Or do none of them contain NIV1984?
I totally agree with you!!
Too bad Zondervan has taken this route....
I realize this is an oooooold topic/thread, but since it resurfaced this morning, thought I'd throw in a couple of comments.
1) My reason for wanting the 1984 version is that it's the version most (all?) of my commentaries and other resources use when referring to the NIV, and I've often enough run across specific words or phrases from the 1984 NIV that are discussed by these resources, but have been changed in the 2011 NIV. To me, it's very frustrating to invest in the resources that reference the 1984 NIV, yet NOT be able to see the same text the author saw and discusses in detail in his/her resource that references the NIV.
2) In an effort to overcome the frustration noted above, last April I purchased the 1984 Anglicised version of the NIV available in Logos. Not a perfect solution, but in several cases I found it better than the 2011 version when the NIV is being referenced by other resources.
This was not Zondervan's decision (not that I'm a fan, or opponent, of Zondervan). The issue is with the holder of the NIV copyright which is Biblica. Biblica licenses the right to print the NIV to Zondervan.
I'm quite sure Zondervan would gladly publish the NIV84, as I'm sure sales of that version would far outpace the NIV2011.
This is a shame, and I cannot understand the logic. The 1984 NIV was one of the most popular translations, and many of us (including me) still use it. I still preach from it.
(I stand corrected. I had understood that it was Zondervan's decision. Regardless, the copyright owner does not allow it to be sold.)
And so do I preach from it. The NIV 84 was included with some of the older Logos packages that go way back. The first time I remember getting it was with a Logos Library System package that ran on Windows 3.1. It was included later with several of the Logos bundled packages for Libronix and the first versions of the newer Logos.
And like a previous reply stated, most of my NIV commentaries are based on the 84 version not the 2011 one. You can still find paper copies of the 84 version if you shop around on eBay or several of the other websites that sell books and Bibles.
My paper copy was purchased at the Lifeway bookstore attached to the SWBTS seminary many years ago when I was attending. Can't read the print on the cover any longer but the contents are still intact!
Merry Christmas everyone.
In Christ,
Charles
I affectionately refer to it as the YNIV
Strangely enough, the NIV 1984 was still available in BibleWorks when they closed shop about 2019. I still have it in BibleWorks.
The NIV84 is still available in Logos... just not to purchase.
It's a shame the NIV has lost some of it's popularity among evangelicals. It improves on the 1984 version in many ways, inclusive issues aside. One small example is the "tacash" skins of Exodus 25:5, where there are instructions on materials used for the roof of the tabernacle:
"ram skins dyed red and another type of durable leather"
"Durable leather", while not clear, is at least not as strange as 1984, which put "sealskins". Quite a few translations are just as strange as well, where they wrongly delve into the etymology of Arabic or some other non-Jewish culture and try to deduce the meaning of tacash through vague Semitic correlation. Some translations also just fabricate new meanings, like the RSV and ESV which has "goatskins". The KJV, which I still love, is just as strange and put "badger skins". Renaissance thinking believed that Hebrew was the first human language, and all other human languages had traces of it. So the Renaissance reasoning immediately jumped to thinking that "tacash" must mean "badger", simply because "dachs" in German meant badger, and "dachs" slightly resembles "tacash"!
Anyways, one thing in common with all of these is that they ignore Jews. There is no possible way that the holiest structure in all of Judaism is going to be covered with non-kosher animals like badgers and seals. And at least the NIV 2011 acknowledges this much, and threw in the towel with a generic "durable leather". So gender issues aside (some of which I think are excessive, especially when it comes to pluralizing words), I think the NIV 2011 does little corrections like this well.
edit: On a sidenote, the Anchor commentary makes a compelling case that tacash meant "beaded skins". An ornamental craft, still used in the ME. Although I think it's safe to lean on tradition and use the LXX, which said it was a violet dye. If that was good enough for the early church, it's good enough for me.
I prefer the NIV (1984) over any translation. I think the Copyright owner made a huge mistake in not allowing it to be sold any more.
However, after years of hold out, I now use and preach from the ESV. The reason I made this switch is that my congregation can no longer buy a 1984 edition NIV, unless they buy an old used one. So, I had to face reality and preach from a Bible everyone could buy.
There is much to like about the ESV, but I still would prefer the NIV (1984).
