Add the 1984 NIV

Page 2 of 4 (80 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 79 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:16 AM

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

 

Posts 1085
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:23 AM

Rosie Perera:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:37 AM

Correction:  79% of the TNIV was retained in the 2011 NIV.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:42 AM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
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.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 3743
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:49 AM

David Thomas:

This is a GREAT idea, and I hope it doesn't take the executives at Zondervan 10 years figure this out!

Yes +1 Big Smile

Grace & Peace,
Bill


MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 3743
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:53 AM

Richard DeRuiter:

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.

Yes +1

Grace & Peace,
Bill


MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 1085
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 8:57 AM

By the way, here are some great articles from The Briefing on the subject of switching from the NIV84 to something else.

After the NIV, then what?

After the NIV: Appendix 1—Gender

After the NIV: Appendix 2—1 Timothy 2:1-6

Here's an article on why Kevin DeYoung uses the ESV. I think the translation is good, but I also find myself wondering at times if it gives an accurate translation*. I like the NASB, and while I don't know Hebrew, a professor once said that it portrays the Hebrew accurately, but it also reads like Hebrew (it's not smooth English). I use the ESV mostly because that's what we use at church, and it can make word studies in Logos that much more interesting! Smile

Bill

*Here's an example off the top of my head: Rev 2:4. The English sentences given have quite different meanings.

NASB: But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

ESV: But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

 

 

 

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 9:02 AM

Richard DeRuiter:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
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.

It's not so much a debate of the already criticized 2011 NIV, as a desire to make my Logos purchase more useful.  You have to admit that the bible is the most important resource in all of the Logos packages.

Going back to the original post and the subject at hand, it is to add the 1984 NIV.

The criticism of the 2011 NIV is relevant, even though you may not agree, as it provides good cause to make the 1984 NIV available.

That would make my Logos software more "profitable".

Posts 1085
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 9:04 AM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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.

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 9:08 AM

William Gabriel:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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

 

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 9:56 AM

Richard DeRuiter:
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...

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:06 AM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
The criticism of the 2011 NIV is relevant, even though you may not agree, as it provides good cause to make the 1984 NIV available.

Actually I think that the strongest argument is that the 2011 is a new translation rather than an update and it should be recognised as such. Given that the 1977 NASB eventually survived I believe that there is still hope for the 1984 NIV. Beginning to think that the 2011 NIV should have been called the Revised New International Version or maybe even the New New International Version!

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 11938
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:17 AM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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

 

 

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 452
Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:18 AM

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.

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:18 AM

Graham Owen:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
The criticism of the 2011 NIV is relevant, even though you may not agree, as it provides good cause to make the 1984 NIV available.

Actually I think that the strongest argument is that the 2011 is a new translation rather than an update and it should be recognised as such. Given that the 1977 NASB eventually survived I believe that there is still hope for the 1984 NIV. Beginning to think that the 2011 NIV should have been called the Revised New International Version or maybe even the New New International Version!

 

Or the New TNIV

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:29 AM

I don't know, I think this 1984 onlyism goes too far sometimes 

Wink

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:31 AM

NB.Mick:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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.

Posts 17
Terin Lyr D'Amico | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:41 AM

Paul Golder:

I don't know, I think this 1984 onlyism goes too far sometimes 

Wink

 

I agree that some people are real zealous on the subject.  I've even seem some people who setup websites that were ludicrous.  I'd just like to see if Logos can champion for making the 1984 NIV available.  They can offer both, and differentiate the two by the year.  With the 2011 NIV basically containing 79% of the controversial content from the TNIV, I've made my choice, and would like to see the 1984 NIV as an option.

Posts 11938
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 10:54 AM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
If you look at the OP, you'll see I'm asking for the 1984 NIV to be added. 

That's fine and I actually support your request.

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
I posted the CBMW link to William in response to his link for the Translator's Notes. 

William posts directly after your link at the top of this page (or last page, if this post flips to p3)...

In my opinion it would be a much more helpful answer to point to a specific page and write something like "on page XYZ of the review I posted earlier you may find a critical discussion of the Translator's Notes" or link something that specifically adresses these.

Terin Lyr D'Amico:
I don't appreciate the accusation that I'm "spamming" the link every time I post

Rather than accusing you of already doing it, my intention was more to ask you to not start it by posting the link more often in subsequent answers. Maybe I came accross less polite than intended - please pardon me.   

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 1085
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 5 2012 12:28 PM

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

William Gabriel:

Terin Lyr D'Amico:

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.

Bill

Page 2 of 4 (80 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS