Add the 1984 NIV

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

Posts 238
Charles | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 24 2017 5:35 PM

Michael Childs:
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.

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

2017 27" iMac 5K, Mojave, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iOS 12.0, Catalina beta, iPadOS Beta  

Posts 1921
Robert M. Warren | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 25 2017 8:46 AM

I affectionately refer to it as the YNIV

Windows 10 (L9 Beta) | Android 9 (phone - L9 Beta) | Fire OS 7 (tablet - L9 Stable)

Posts 130
Russel Taylor | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 26 2017 11:42 AM

It appears that you can still get the Anglicised version of the 1984 NIV.  That's what I ended up getting to make up for the fact that the US 1984 version is unavailable.

Posts 1028
Keith Pang | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 26 2017 2:09 PM

But is the anglicized one a worthwhile purchase? How far off is it from NIV 84

Shalom, in Christ, Keith. Check out my music www.soundcloud.com/therealkpang

Posts 130
Russel Taylor | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 26 2017 2:41 PM

My understanding is that it is mostly the same text just with Anglicised spellings.  I've found a blog post which highlights a few differences in words/phrases:  https://betterbibles.wordpress.com/2007/04/14/british-and-american-bible-version-differences/ 

One thing, though, is that it apparently does not include a reverse interlinear (a feature that I do not use or really understand the benefits of).

Posts 30
J. Gary Ellison | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 3:17 AM

Strangely enough, the NIV 1984 was still available in BibleWorks when they closed shop about 2019. I still have it in BibleWorks.

Posts 29620
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 4:37 AM

J. Gary Ellison:

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. 

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 1612
Paul Caneparo | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 5:15 AM

JT (alabama24):

J. Gary Ellison:

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. 

Still available to buy as far as I can see

https://www.logos.com/product/29979/the-holy-bible-new-international-version-anglicised

Posts 1612
Paul Caneparo | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 5:18 AM

Keith Pang:

But is the anglicized one a worthwhile purchase? How far off is it from NIV 84

It is the NIV84 - just with correct spelling! 😀🤣

Posts 4625
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 5:47 AM

Paul Caneparo:

Keith Pang:

But is the anglicized one a worthwhile purchase? How far off is it from NIV 84

It is the NIV84 - just with correct spelling! 😀🤣

I wish Logos would transfer or modify the interlinear though so it would work with this one as well.  That is the larger problem for me

Posts 1234
David Wanat | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 7:52 AM

I recall back when it was Libronix, I contacted FL about getting a copy (I was involved in a theological discussion with people who preferred it, and I wanted to be able to see the phrasing they were used to in order to avoid needless disputes over meaning). They told me that they couldn’t sell it to me directly, but they could sell me a CD-ROM package (I think it must have been remaindered) that included it. This would have been 2006 or 2007.

I never realized it would be such a sought after resource when I bought it.

WIN 10 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM | iPad Air 3
Verbum 9 Ultimate

Posts 2507
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 8:40 AM

There's a discussion thread somewhere about trying to get publishers to allow users to purchase older versions of a resource if they purchase the most recent.  I wish this would happen.  It would give users the opportunity to buy resources that they really want and the publishers would benefit as well. 

Posts 83
Jon | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 9:13 AM

The explanation for the NIV1984 saga reminds me of what happened with the original Star Wars trilogy.  No matter how many times fans asked for the rerelease of the original versions, which didn’t include the (sometimes ridiculous) “special edition” effects, Lucasfilm’s response was always “the special editions are the official versions now, and we’re not going to look back on the past by releasing the original ones again.”

Posts 2507
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 9:51 AM

Jon:
The explanation for the NIV1984 saga reminds me of what happened with the original Star Wars trilogy.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Posts 8211
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 11:42 AM

Ronald Quick:

Jon:
The explanation for the NIV1984 saga reminds me of what happened with the original Star Wars trilogy.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

I wouldn’t know! The only star wars related show I’ve watched was The Mandalorian, other than that, I don’t even know which star wars you need to watch first in order to understand it.  There are so many of them 🤓

DAL

Posts 1832
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 11:50 AM

DAL:
I don’t even know which star wars you need to watch first in order to understand it.  There are so many of them

It is always good to start with the Star Wars Holiday Special, since that was the first time the bounty hunters showed up, DevilDevil

More seriously, Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back should give enough background to start The Mandalorian.

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 36
Ken Thompsen | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 21 2021 12:39 PM

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.

Posts 2889
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 24 2021 8:31 AM

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).

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 349
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 24 2021 9:22 AM

Pathfinder:
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

Comes from 'non-jewish' sources and a 'vague correlation'.

Actually an excellent article is in Journal of Semitic Studies 45, 1-19 by Stephanie Dalley, concerning beadwork. Tawil in his Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew, also discusses at length, tracing to Hurrian/Akkadian, with an almost exact match (red, madder-light leather for tenting) to Isin and Mari approx 2000-1800 bce.

On the contra, seals and porpoises were common in the Sinai Deserts, and thus the english assigned by the Lexham Hebrew Interlinear (sea cow) is correct. Smiling.

Posts 36
Ken Thompsen | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 24 2021 10:01 AM

DMB:

Pathfinder:
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

Comes from 'non-jewish' sources and a 'vague correlation'.

Actually an excellent article is in Journal of Semitic Studies 45, 1-19 by Stephanie Dalley, concerning beadwork. Tawil in his Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew, also discusses at length, tracing to Hurrian/Akkadian, with an almost exact match (red, madder-light leather for tenting) to Isin and Mari approx 2000-1800 bce.

On the contra, seals and porpoises were common in the Sinai Deserts, and thus the english assigned by the Lexham Hebrew Interlinear (sea cow) is correct. Smiling.

Thanks for pointing that article out. Lexically and even regionally, porpoises/seals makes sense (at least more sense than badgers), but kosher wise, it doesn't. That's all I meant.

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