What happened to the NIV 84 being available on Biblia.com?
Welcome, Sam.
It seems Zondervan now forced Logos to retract NIV 1984 completely in order to push users into NIV 2011. See e.g. this thread: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/48005.aspx
Since I always thought biblia.com went with the iPhone/iPad/Android devices regarding availability (the product site simply calls it "internet"), I wonder whether NIV 1984 is still available on mobile devices?
I can still access the NIV84 on my iPad and Android phone, both in the Logos app and Vyrso
Looks that way--and I see it as a clear sign of Zondervan's desperation to turn their decisions into good ones (instead of just making good decisions to begin with). I could go on at length about the questionability of their various decisions from various angles, but they are actually doing several things to distance themselves from their base. Maybe we should commend them--maybe we need to be distanced from them... Just a little hard for me since I have a lifelong affinity toward the translation, but time will tell, and I'm set up pretty well.
Zondervan's desperation
Just to be clear it is the IBS not Zondervan that has retracted 1984, I am sure Zondervan would like nothing better than selling more products not caring too much whether it is 2011 or 1984. Yes I am aware many organizations may update their versions to 2011 but I would suspect a lot of them will commingle them happily for a while anyway...
-Dan
Just to be clear it is the IBS not Zondervan that has retracted 1984, I am sure Zondervan would like nothing better than selling more products not caring too much whether it is 2011 or 1984.
Uh, yeah, I read that in another forum and actually don't think the clarification is particularly believable--nor for that matter--helpful. Nevertheless, I grant you the full benefit of the doubt that you shared this with all imaginable charity, so thank you, but I offer some clarifying points of my own (in question form): What publisher bends their marketing decisions to the whims of the author? On that tangent, what publisher is known to make sudden changes not conducive to the interests of customers who have invested in them and trusted them for future expansion and a continued protection of their investment? The answer to the first question is No publishing company, not even the first resulting one who took Johann Gutenberg to court to posess his presses and his partially completed Bibles--and then later completed publishing them, only recognizing him as the inventor after his death years later. The answer to the second one may surprise you as well. Blessings!
Does anyone know if we were to buy a Libronix CD-ROM containing the NIV '84 if this would download when Logos activated the licence? If so, has anyone seen any Libronix bundles containing this resource? I'm kicking myself for not buying the NIV '84 when I had the chance...
This should work because it is a pre-existing copy, kind of like finding one in a book store.
I've just acquired a new licence to use the NIV Anglicised Edition (based on 1984 text) on Logos 4 and note that I cannot access it on biblia.com or on my iPad. Is this the case for everyone else who owns this resource? If it is a publisher licensing issue, does anyone know if it's likely to make its way on to mobile devices? Thanks.
I have 2011 NIV in Biblia as my only NIV version available in Biblia.com
I have 2011 NIV and 1984 NIV available and downloaded in my Android Logos application
I have 2011 NIV and 1984 NIV available in my Logos4 desktop application
Ownership of the 1984 NIV Bible is a grandfathered product, it is no longer available for purchase. I would however be curious if the license would be subject to the $20 transfer. In other words, it may be possible for someone to purchase a 1984 NIV license from someone who was willing to sell it.
I have an Anglicized NIV which I bought many years ago. I think it came from a third-party CD-ROM rather than directly from Logos. It was published by Hodder and Stoughton rather than by Zondervan, and I am not sure if Logos has any ongoing relationship with them.
Anyway, it doesn't appear on my iOS app or online, although my NIV 1984 and 2011 do.
When I checked on the Logos website they do tend to stock older Hodder & Stoughton resources so this does suggest they don't have a strong ongoing relationship.
If you're listening Logos, it would be great if you could make the NIV Anglicised Edition available on iOS! (I hope the fact that we're likely talking about a small number of users with this NIV edition doesn't mean the plea falls on deaf ears...)
I emailed Bob this morning to enquire whether Logos could allow the NIV Anglicised Edition to be made available on the iOS app. I had a prompt reply saying my request had been passed to the licensing department to see if this could be done. Thank you, Bob. [Y]
Hi Paul, any updates on this topic? Have you had a follow up from the licensing department? I found this thread wondering what happened to my Biblia NIV84...
Thanks.
Hi Matilda. I tweeted the Logos employee dealing with this matter just last week for an update. He said discussions are still ongoing, and he didn't have a date on when it would be made available. When I tweeted him 2 months ago, he was confident it would eventually be made available, he just couldn't confirm when.
However, Biblia is not for sale but is free. Therefore how can Zondervan force them not to include NIV 1984? Obviously LOGOS has chosen to submit to Zondervan's whims. LOGOS includes all kinds of aberrant stuff, why not include the NIV 1984, which unlike the 2011 version is not the TNIV in disguise?
BibleGateway.com includes the NIV 1984 version. Apparently LOGOS is afraid of the big 'Z'. Who needs Biblia?
Biblia is not for sale but is free. Therefore how can Zondervan force them not to include NIV 1984?
Biblia as a website is for free, but it shows only a limited number of resources which are either PD, or Logos holds the rights, or the publishers agreed to showing their stuff on the web. It will additionally show those resources from your Logos library where Logos relicenced with the publisher to be allowed to do so (97% of my library, the NIV84 is one of the rare exceptions). Any publisher can force anybody hosting a legitimite website and a business in North America or Europe to stop showing unlicenced content they have the copyright for.
Obviously LOGOS has chosen to submit to Zondervan's whims.
Obviously they have chosen to operate within the legal framework, which is on the long run a good thing for us customers.
The NIV Anglicised Version (based on the NIV 1984 text) has very recently been made available on Logos' iOS app. It took Logos a little longer to get this resource to mobile devices than the American equivalent. Thank you Logos [Y] [Y] [Y]
Just had a thought...
Now that the Anglicised NIV 1984 is available on Biblia, Iphone, Android.
It not often my American friends look across the pond with envy.
But I can read both NIV 2011 (USA) and NIV 1984 Anglicised on Biblia.com. Something Americans are denied.
I was blessed to purchase the NIV 1984 Anglicised CD-Rom (Libronix) when it was available (no longer).[:D]
P A
Yes I am aware many organizations may update their versions to 2011 but I would suspect a lot of them will commingle them happily for a while anyway
There is a 3rd option to update or commingle. I know of two good size churches who, on finding they could not replace some of their well worn pew bibles with identical copy (colour not important, just text & pagination), elected to discontinue use of the NIV, and went with a different translation. IBS would have been further ahead to have continued the NIV84, and kept the customer base. I suspect new Christians are more likely to purchase the same translation as they find in the pews, but would only go looking for NIV, not a particular edition. Accordingly, not only did IBS lose the church sales, but also possibly the future private sales.
I guess that is not really relevant to NIV84 in Biblia/Logos/verso, but, it may be reflected in which versions do get purchased. (Why has Crossways elected to give away electronic licenses for ESV's?)
Perhaps this still contains the 1984 edition text?
{where above embedded link points to http://www.logos.com/product/4873/sermon-studies-on-the-old-testament-ilcw-series-b}
Mark,
I appreciate your optimism, but even though this commentary uses the 1984 NIV in the inline text, it is not listed among the titles included. If you wish to have a copy of the link for the 1984 NIV, here it is (and it now points to no other resources).
As for me, I'm just about ready... and in the process... even after stocking up last summer on several printed volumes of 1984 NIV Study Bibles for decades to come...
I think I'm just going to take the hard pill after two years have now passed since this all came about and accept that a Logos licensed 1984 NIV will NOT be available anytime soon--at least not until it has become entirely irrelevant in modern Christianity. As such, I'm in the process of what has been unthinkable for me--adopting a new translation for my own use. I also regret that I defended the NIV for years against those who questioned its validity, and to see a move like this so early on the horizon in terms of the life of a translation (where 30-40 years is a mere single drop in the bucket), causes me to question the whole International Bible Soceity/Biblica--and yes, Zondervan enterprises.
In the past couple of years, I've had a lot of opportunity to dig around in the roots and development of the English bible, especially during the transformation of Middle English to Early Modern English under Tyndale and through the formation of the King James Version. While the ESV seems to me a step backward in its use of archaic words and constructs, it is gaining much acceptance by highly respected leaders--and as a primarily English speaker, I can handle it just fine--although I long for a more "transparent" translation for purposes of evangelism, the ESV is about the best I can find.
Just a note in passing, I liked Logo's Lexham translation, also, but it lacks widespread acceptance, hardcopy availability, and also uses... archaisms--of all things! Nevertheless, it is telling that Logos no longer includes ANY form of the NIV in their packages--and who can blame them after all this headache and ultimate fiasco! Zondervan and Biblica are making the whole NIV family the "persona non grata," and they are doing it all by themselves! And further, Logos has developed their own Lexham High Definition New Testament for use with the ESV!In any case, this helps me understand the reluctance and even harsh opposition coming from the KJV crowd--for invariably I've heard them make some appeal to their own feelings on the matter. To me, the 1984 NIV is still the only version that feels or seems like God's Word--it has been my mainstay for over 30 years, throughout my most formative years in the faith, through Bible College, and beyond, and I still have the cassette tapes I play when I drive (and I really don't foresee my next car having a cassette deck, so this will all change, lol)--in every way the NIV had locked itself into my spiritual development, my religious community, my evangelism--in short, into my affections.
Nevertheless, it won't be the first time in the history of the English bible that ugly abuses of power have chained vernacular expressions of God's Word, and it probably won't be the last, and of course, those in power have all sorts of rationalizations for their own actions, just as the apostle Paul had in his early days, just as translators of the KJV did in their persecutions, tortures, and executions of Puritists, and likewise, the petty actions of these publishers and translation holders are not enough to deter those who desire to make a difference in the few precious years we have here, we can whip right around the NIV altogether--and see if we don't!
It has been said that "survival goes not to the strongest, but to those who are the quickest to adapt to change." Also, living a purposeful life requires enough serenity and wisdom--both gifts from God--to know when to hold out and when to move on. These are summed up in the Serenity Prayer like this:
God, grant me Serenity to accept the things I cannot changeCourage to change the things I can, andWisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,Enjoying one moment at a time,Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,Taking, as Jesus did,This sinful world as it is,Not as I would have it,Trusting that You will make all things right,If I surrender to Your will,So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.
Anthony,
depending on what you want to spend to get it, it is often (and currently as of this post) available here via an older Logos version purchase that includes it. I actually have it as well as the new one because of how long I've had Logos Bible Software. Personally I am a fan of the ESV though, and have been since its release. Also, when I made my post, that link actually did specifically list the NIV 1984 version, but it has apparently been updated since then (probably because it no longer contains that version).
Logos sells numerous resources that utilize the full text of the NIV84, but Logos can no long provide the NIV84 to use along side these same resources. Makes sense. [:^)]
Logos is a big player. How a company could just let this happen seems irresponsible. I'm not convinced that Zondervan is holding all the best cards. There is something we are not being told.
Logos sells numerous resources that utilize the full text of the NIV84, but Logos can no long provide the NIV84 to use along side these same resources.
Anyone for The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised 1984 Edition [;)]
Logos sells numerous resources that utilize the full text of the NIV84, but Logos can no long provide the NIV84 to use along side these same resources. Makes sense. Logos is a big player. How a company could just let this happen seems irresponsible. I'm not convinced that Zondervan is holding all the best cards. There is something we are not being told.
Logos sells numerous resources that utilize the full text of the NIV84, but Logos can no long provide the NIV84 to use along side these same resources. Makes sense.
This is not a decision of either Logos nor Zondervan. It's a decision of Biblica (http://www.biblica.com/ formerly the Committee on Bible Translation) - not related to Biblia, BTW, note the spelling. Biblica is the legal copyright holder to the NIV. They contracted with Zondervan (in the U.S.) to print & distribute for them.
This has been discussed at length in these forums. If you want to do what I did, visit the Biblica web site and under "Contact us" (link at the top fo the page), express your opinion.
Anyone for The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised 1984 Edition
That looks like the proverbial bird killer! It solves two problems at once - provides Americans with a 1984 NIV and helps them learn to spell ;-)
Logos sells numerous resources that utilize the full text of the NIV84, but Logos can no long provide the NIV84 to use along side these same resources. Makes sense. Logos is a big player. How a company could just let this happen seems irresponsible. I'm not convinced that Zondervan is holding all the best cards. There is something we are not being told. This is not a decision of either Logos nor Zondervan. It's a decision of Biblica (http://www.biblica.com/ formerly the Committee on Bible Translation) - not related to Biblia, BTW, note the spelling. Biblica is the legal copyright holder to the NIV. They contracted with Zondervan (in the U.S.) to print & distribute for them. This has been discussed at length in these forums. If you want to do what I did, visit the Biblica web site and under "Contact us" (link at the top fo the page), express your opinion.
Oh, yes. I've heard this explanation before. I'm suggesting that there is something suspicious going on. The bizarre total expulsion of the NIV84 text is inexplicable. It was extremely popular and it was utilized in countless resources.
What sort of conspiracy did you have in mind?
I'm certain both Logos and Zondervan expect to lose a great deal of money because of Biblica's decision. There is little reason to assume that the response to the NIV11 will be any less than the rejection of the TNIV (which Biblica does not allow to be sold either). They are too similar not to make the comparison both by detractors, and in sales. Objections on these forums to the removal of the NIV83 seem to support that conclusion, uh, more or less, conclusively.
The foolishness of Biblica's decision seems apparent to everyone but them. Hoards of faithful NIV84 users, are actively seeking, or have already moved to other modern translations. This is too bad, since the NIV11 has a lot to commend in it, IMHO (the return to "flesh" as a translation of "sarx," vs. "sinful nature" for one). But the 'strong-arm' decision of Biblica has put a bad taste in our mouths, so to speak, about the NIV11, and even those who see the NIV11 as an overall improvement over the NIV84, are looking elsewhere. This is to say nothing of those who find some of the gender-inclusive language troublesome.It has been often compared to the "New Coke" debacle in the 80's, though unlike the Coca-Cola corporation, Biblica shows no signs of backing down.
But we are getting off the topic of discussing Logos software, aren't we.
I have ignored the problem for 2 years but today Bible Gateway denied me access to the NIV84 saying there is only one NIV and I should check out all the new features. What about 30 years of Bible memorization? What about over 5% of the text changed to become less literal? I got no response. We all rejoiced when NLT made the Living more scholarly, but why "dumb down the NIV?" MONEY. Why not allow us to continue to use the NIV84? I'm afraid it's the same answer. ESV and Holman are looking better and better, but what about the pew Bibles and all my memory verses? Does "Word perfect" count for anything anymore?
Good points
Thanks for your good comments, Mark. NIV84 is a part of my spiritual formation, Bible college experience, and evangelism strategy as well. I'm leaning toward ESV, but lately have considered Holman (HCSB) for balanced readability. Check it out and let me know what you think. Just wish I could get Bible Gateway to keep NIV84.
Just wish I could get Bible Gateway to keep NIV84.
Well, this probably is the wrong forum for this discussion - but you may read the NIV 84 in its anglizised spelling (link was given above) in Logos, on the web on biblia.com, and on mobile plattforms. Maybe that helps a bit.
i noticed a banner the other day on biblegateway.com that said niv84 would no longer be available after feb 28.
BibleGateway.com includes the NIV 1984 version. Apparently LOGOS is afraid of the big 'Z'. Who needs Biblia? i noticed a banner the other day on biblegateway.com that said niv84 would no longer be available after feb 28.
https://support.biblegateway.com/entries/23178691-Why-did-you-remove-the-1984-NIV-and-TNIV-from-Bible-Gateway-
Biblegateway says that it's Biblica that asked them to remove the NIV84 text. No mention of Zondervan.
Reading Todd's link, with NIV84 at 450 million purchases, and the new one at 10 million or so, 2 years for the latter, that'd be .... hmmm ... 45 more years to convert them all!
Oh wait, my calculator pushed its keys wrong. Old thing. Ok, 90 years.
Now, let's see. The average age of the NIV84 user was 46.3 years. Ok. 46.3 + 90 ... hmmm ... medical improvements in life support ARE a factor.
Well, ok, looks do-able.
have considered Holman (HCSB) for balanced readability. Check it out and let me know what you think.
have considered Holman (HCSB) for balanced readability. Check it out and let me know what you think. If you want a translation dominated by the translation "needs" of exactly one demonination, go for it.
I'm only really starting to appreciate NIV more so now and before. While the English study version is NASB, my next preferred one is HCSB even though I'm not Baptist.
NIV11 is 5% altered. By that I mean 1 in every 20 verses has been changed. That does not even take into account the punctuation changes. It is a new translation when it comes to my life long Bible memory work. How long before they make enough changes that it cannot even be considered a reliable translation at all? Seriously, are we going to just let Biblica tell folks like Biblia/Logos that they can't supply people with the translation they've loved for over 30 years? Logos, please stand up to Biblica/NYBible Society/ Zondervan and demand to supply your users with the translation we trust and want. NIV 11 has been "dumbed down" to compete financially with the NLT. Are we going to let money determine what we receive as God's word. Already scholars are flocking away from NIV11 to the ESV. Devotionalists are flocking away to the Holman and the NLT. Help us out Logos and get a reliable NIV back for us. (I've already taken my request to Biblica directly several times. Once I even challenged them to prove me wrong about their financial motivations and release the copyright for NIV84 into the public domain.) I asked nicely, but it might be time for the public to make demands.
Bible Gateway has caved in as well. Somewhere in the Billy Graham Library there is supposed to be access to NIV84. If anyone can find it before I do, please post
How long before they make enough changes that it cannot even be considered a reliable translation at all?
Acts 1:16: ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί . . .
Literal translation: "Men, brothers. . ."
NIV 11: "Brothers and sisters"
NIV 11 Footnote: "The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God's family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15."
In regard to this verse the NIV text and footnote are wrong. I agree that adelphoi can mean "brothers and sisters", but not here. Not when preceded by aner.
I know that many consider this a "minor" thing, but I have a really big problem with the way the NIV 11 translated this verse - especially the footnote. When asked about, Moo defended their translation with the rational that women were most likely present. In my opinion that strengthens to argument that this verse is not referring the brothers and sisters, but that Peter was addressing the men of that congregation.
In short - I do not believe the NIV is a better translation. It has some better sections, but others that are not so good.
BTW - the NIV 11 is the only Bible I know of that translates Acts 1:16 "Brothers and sisters". If you can find any other translation that does this, let me know, but I have not found any.
And, it is clear to me that Zondervan and IBS have essentially colluded to salvage their decision a while back to supplant the NIV with the TNIV and have chosen to use the NIV11, which is a blend of those, to accomplish that. They both lost money on the TNIV; plus are determined to force their TNIV related agenda. This is plainly an arrogant, almost narcissistic action. I know of at least one of the key NT scholar contributors who, along with several of his collegues at the seminary where he teaches bought into feminist movement several years ago, who was a driving force in the TNIV and NIV11 translations. I am convinced after having confronted them with that point back then and watched them move toward the emergent movement, that this is the underlying motivation for both the failed TNIV and NIV11. Otherwise IBS and Zondervan would not have gone to NIV11 and spent the money and resources they have over the past several years. Zondervan made a clear decision over twenty years ago to put income and profits ahead of sound doctrine and theology. All one has to do is look at the long list of fluff they publish.
Expanded Bible: New Testament => http://www.logos.com/product/8805/the-expanded-bible-new-testament
Keep Smiling [:)]
Looking through the examples where the phrase "andres adelphoi" occurs, it's not clear that this phrase is intended to be an address exclusively to men. For example, Acts 13:26, 38, Paul speaking in the Synagogue uses this phrase, 2X. Because of the way the Synagogue was organized, the women being restricted to the back or sides, it seems understandable that Paul was speaking to the men. But it seems unlikely that he is speaking to them exclusively - that is, he is intentionally communicating to only the men, implying that what he is saying does not apply to any women who might be listening. The same is likely to be true in Acts 1:16, IMHO.
If we look at Acts 2:14, 22, we see a similar phrase Andres Ioudaioi and Andres Israelitai. It seems unlikely that "Andres" is an address intended to exclude women from listening in on the sermon. In verse 22, where there is no other qualifier, it seems even more likely that the phrase translated "men of Israel" is an address intended to included the women who are there as well.
I notice that the phrase andres adelphoi does not occur outside of Acts and only once in the LXX (that I found - in 4Macc 8:19). It seems to be a common formal address to a crowd, occuring in Acts most commonly in the context of a synagogue (though obviously in other gatherings as well). One wonders whether in this case Peter is simply using the common address as a way of beginning this speech. When someone begins a speech with the word "Friends," we would not assume that the speaker is actually friends with everyone in the audience. Simply that he is addressing them as a friend would address a friend. In this case, we might not assume that Peter is intending to speak exclusively to those in the room with a "Y" chromosome, but merely speaking as men and brothers speak with each other.
Now, I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else that "Andres adelphoi" cannot or should not be taken in it's exclusive sense here or elsewhere. But I would suggest that it's not self-evident that this phrase should be taken that way here, nor is it self-evident that the best way to render that phrase in a way that would have the same meaning in our culture as in Peter's is how the LEB vs. the NIV11 translates it. In my view, there is good reason to translate the phrase in a way that does not render it as an address exclusively to men (i.e., specifically not to women). As I examine the other uses of the phrase in Acts, the context apparently includes women in the audience who apparently did respond to the message addressed to "andres adelphoi" (cf. Acts 2:41, 13:43,ff.).
As for aner, there are at least 2X in the NT where the word should not be rendered as exclusively male: Rom.4:8 (cf.Ps.32:32=LXX 31:2), and James 1:12. There's also one time when andridzomai, should be understood to include women (1Cor.16:13). While one should not build a rule on an exception, the exceptions do demonstrate a non-exclusive sense to aner that we should take into account in our translations.
BTW, it's probably not a good idea to debate the merits of one translation over another. However, using Logos, I explored your hypothesis (that adelphoi should not be translated as brothers and sisters when preceded by aner) and conclude that the hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny - at least not mine. If you'd like to use Logos to challenge my conclusion, here's my search criteria (use in any Logos reverse interlinear): <Lemma = lbs/el/ἀνήρ> <Lemma = lbs/el/ἀδελφός> (this gets only one irrelevant hit: in 1Cor 7:14).
Peace, Richard! *smile* Beautiful! Well-written, indeed! Thank you so very kindly for sharing with your Brothers and Sisters on this Forum!
Edit: Richard, for your information, I am very fond of and appreciate the young pastor Michael and truly do I appreciate his enthusiasm for the Lord! *smile*
It so happens that one of his grandfathers was my German Professor in College in 1954! One of the best courses I ever had! I often thank God for that tremendous experience!
'nor is it self-evident that the best way to render that phrase in a way that would have the same meaning in our culture as in Peter's is how the LEB vs. the NIV11 translates it'
But he addressed the people in that culture. The reader should be allowed to know what he actually said, faithfully translated into English. ἀνήρ means man, and must be translated as such.
Very probably women did respond to his message. But that doesn't mean that Peter addressed them, and we shouldn't pretend that he did.
Andrew
