Updated NIV is now available for viewing online


Rather than doing an extensive review of the updated NIV, because I am entirely incapable of doing so, I am providing a few websites (and a couple of quotes) that may be of benefit to you. The most helpful information at this time, in my humble opinion, is from the translators themselves. I have found two things in particular to be very helpful: 1) the translation notes; and 2) the comprehensive study on the use of gender language in contemporary English.

Following are several sites, including the two above, you may find useful:

Following are a couple of selections from the translation notes.

The first, Reasons for changing the text in the new edition fall into three basic categories:

  1. Changes in English. For example:

    • Who would have guessed in the 1970s that, within a few decades, an ‟alien” would mean, thanks to the influence of ET and other movies and TV shows, an ‟extraterrestrial being”? In the updated NIV, ‟alien” has been replaced with ‟foreigner” or similar words in order to communicate the intention of God’s Word accurately to contemporary English readers. See, for instance, Genesis 23:4: ‟I am a foreigner and stranger among you . . . ”
    • ‟Ankle chains” refer much more often to prison manacles than to the type of personal adornments described in Isaiah 3:20. The modern fashion of wearing jewelry around the ankle has led to the widespread use of the word ‟anklet” to describe this piece of jewelry, and this is the word used in the updated NIV.
    • In Exodus 4:14 Aaron’s ‟heart will be glad when he sees” Moses, but today we would just render this Semitic idiom as ‟he will be glad to see you” — as the updated NIV does.
    • And how many readers today would use the word ‟overweening” in a sentence, much less be able to define it? Moab’s ‟overweening pride” in Isaiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:29 has therefore now become her ‟great . . . arrogance.”
  2. Progress in Scholarship. For example:

    • We are more certain than we were forty years ago that the Greek word kataluma used in Luke 2:7 means ‟guest room,” not ‟inn.”
    • We likewise know that those crucified on either side of Jesus (called lēstai) were ‟rebels” rather than ‟robbers” (e.g., Mark 15:27).
    • We now know that the word translated ‟demons” in the original NIV of Psalm 106:37 is more accurately translated ‟false gods.”
    • Joseph’s ‟richly ornamented robe” (Genesis 37:3) suggests a garment with decorations hanging from it, but drawings and descriptions of comparable clothing from antiquity now suggest that ‟ornate” is the best adjective to use.
    • When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
  3. Concern for Clarity. For example:

    • Why retain, ‟when Jacob saw Rachel daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother . . . ,” when you can say, ‟when Jacob saw Rachel daughter of his uncle Laban . . .” (Genesis 29:10) — especially when the immediate context goes on to specify which side of Jacob’s family she came from (v. 13)?
    • The 1984 NIV rendition of Leviticus 4:19-20 reads, ‟He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar, and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them . . .” But this leaves a question hanging in English that is not left hanging in the original — is the priest making atonement for the bulls or for the people? Better to clarify, as in the updated edition: ‟In this way the priest will make atonement for the community.”
    • In place of ‟If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both,” Job 9:33 now reads, ‟If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together.”
    • The Greek relative pronoun in Matthew 1:16b is feminine singular, making it clear that the ‟whom” in the phrase ‟of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ,” refers back only to Mary, not to both Mary and Joseph. Rephrasing this half-verse as, ‟and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah,” makes this crystal clear.
    • The Corinthian slogan in 1 Corinthians 7:1 was captured best in the original NIV footnote, which has now become the text: ‟It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (a view Paul had to qualify before he could endorse it).
    • And one shouldn’t be as easily able to misapply Philippians 4:13 now that it reads, ‟I can do all this through him who gives me strength” (i.e., to be content in all circumstances, whether in riches or in poverty), rather than ‟I can do everything through him who gives me strength.”

Second, What was decided about Inclusive Language?

Nowhere in the updated NIV (nor in the TNIV, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind…

The most significant findings (from the study) that influenced decision making for the updated NIV were:

  • The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they” (‟them”/‟their”) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as ‟whoever,” ‟anyone,” ‟somebody,” ‟a person,” ‟no one,” and the like. Even in Evangelical sermons and books, where the generic ‟he,” ‟him” and ‟his” are preserved more frequently than in other forms of communication, instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the ‟singular they” (‟them” or ‟their”) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms. In other words, most English speakers today express themselves in sentences like these: ‟No one who rooted for the Chicago Cubs to be in a World Series in the last sixty years got their wish. They were disappointed time and time again,” or ‟The person who eats too many hot dogs in too short a period of time is likely to become sick to their stomach.” It is interesting to observe that this development is a throwback to a usage of English that existed prior to the solidification of the generic ‟he” as the only ‟proper” usage during the nineteenth century in Victorian England. Even the KJV occasionally used expressions like ‟ . . . let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). For that matter, so did the Greek New Testament! In James 2:15-16, the Greek for ‟a brother or sister” (adelphos ē adelphē) is followed by plural verbs and predicate adjectives and referred back to with autois (‟them”).
  • English speakers around the world are using a variety of terms to refer to men and women together and for the human race collectively. Plural words such as ‟people,” ‟human beings,” and ‟humans” are very widely used. When it comes to terms that focus on humans in a collective sense, ‟man,” ‟mankind,” ‟humanity,” and ‟the human race” are all being used.
  • ‟Forefather” has all but disappeared from the English language as a generic term, being replaced by ‟ancestor.” Even in Evangelical sermons and writings, ‟ancestor” is more than twice as common as ‟forefather.”

There is much more information in the translation notes. If you have any interest in the NIV please take the time to read the information available.

I will close this post as The Committee on Bible Translation closed the translation notes:

Hear God’s Word the way it was written and understand it the way it was meant! Take it, read it, listen to it, pray over it, enjoy it and use it to grow in Christian maturity!

About Stan McCullars
Son of the King of Kings, husband of the most amazing woman on the planet and father of one incredible son.

6 Responses to Updated NIV is now available for viewing online

  1. Justin says:

    You know I like the NLT , I think this translation was made with genuine intent to get people to understand the word of God. It’s my 2nd favorite translation. However the NIV was an awesome optimal translation, still bordering on thought for though but optimal nonetheless. I’ve read some of the changes and I just don’t see an authentic heart behind all the changes. I am not a huge fan of word for words like the ESV or NASB, so I am genuinely considering a switch to the HCSB. I’ve been an NIV reader since I became a Christian in 1997.
    I think this revised version will dethrone the NIV of it’s number one status. Many will flock to the ESV or HCSB. It’s way to much like the unpopular TNIV.

    • I, too, like the NLT. I became a Christian sitting under a preacher who used the NIV and that was the first Bible I ever read thoroughly. You say you don’t see an authentic heart behind all the changes. Let me encourage you to reconsider. There are some fine Christians serving on the Committee on Bible Translation. People like Douglas Moo, Craig Blomberg, Gordon Fee, R.T. France, Karen Jobes, Bill Mounce and Mark Strauss to name a few.

      Many of the changes to the NIV have to do with the use of third-person plural pronouns (they, them and their) to refer to an individual whose gender is not specified. This is how we speak and write today. That is all I see at work. It’s what I see in most books I read and radio shows I hear. In fact, the biggest opponents of the TNIV use gender-neutral language all the time. If someone at work or on the radio asked for men to do something I suspect very nearly the entire audience would assume women were excluded.

      I encourage you to read How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Fee and Strauss. They do an excellent job of introducing the Bible translation process. It was very helpful to me.

  2. Justin says:

    I am not ruling out staying with the NIV all together. From what I’ve seen on Biblegateway I do not like this revision. It doesn’t read as well. Some things that they had translated in a thought for thought way had fit wonderfully…..like Sinful nature instead of flesh ( specifically in Romans). Then some things they’ve diluted in Psalms and other places. Not to mention didn’t Zondervan or the Bible committee promise not to make a gender neutral version after the TNIV had bombed?

    Believe me I am not opposed to gender inclusive language all together. I think they’re great for private reading, I don’t like it for example for public reading. I’ve spoke messages before and have used both NLT and NIV. However I won’t mention a verse that says “brothers and sisters” in public.

    I really do predict a falling away from the NIV. I could be wrong. A reason why the NLT has been a sucess is because it reached an audience and helped them understand the Bible better. It helps me its why its my number 2. The NIV has had an audience and its widely used for teaching, preaching, study etc in our churches for that reason.

    I’ll wait to fully decide until more reviews and the new copies start coming out , but unofficially more and more it looks like the HCSB will be my new home.

    • Justin, I find it interesting that you don’t think the NIV2011 reads as well as the NIV1984 when they are almost identical translations. A word here…a word there…everything else is the same.

      You are the only person I have heard of who prefers sinful nature to flesh in the New Testament. I’m sure there are others out there.

      You say that some things (have been) diluted in Psalms and other places. What do you mean by diluted?

      Regarding a promise to not make a gender neutral version you’ll need to address Zondervan or the Committee on Bible Translation.

      Regarding the TNIV, I don’t think it bombed as much as it was viciously attacked without cause.

      I’m not sure why you would limit gender accurate translations to private reading. If the underlying text refers to men and women, to translate it as men (alone) would be understood to exclude women in much of today’s English-speaking population. Thus, when speaking to a church and not using brothers and sisters when the text actually refers to brothers and sisters is to give a false impression to at least some of the hearers. That does not sound like a good practice.

      That’s my take.

  3. Justin says:

    You know I’ve read this a few times. While I am still not on board with the new NIV, it is casuing me to rethink a few things. Thanks man.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.