Featured Is it time for another update/revision of the New International Version (NIV)?

This is in response to Van's post #36 which he keeps regurgitating year after year, as if it has any value.
He tries to demean the NIV with largely inane observations. You can look up the verse citations yourself.

1) The NIV is very much like the CSB, ISV, LEB, ESV and NLT here.
2)Van isn't aware that indignation is a synonym for anger.
3) Invalid. Pointless.
4) Most translations have Van's desired word "children" instead of the NIV, CSB and others "friends."
So Van gets a point here.
5) Pointless. Italics are silly.
6) I am not going to cater to Van's idiosyncrasies.No BibleGateway Bible version has what Van wants. Pointless.
7) Pointless.
8) Pointless. It doesn't change the meaning.
9) Pointless.
10) Niv has "to be saved." But that means "for salvation." Pointless.
11) The NIV has "idle and disruptive." That is a clarification of what Van wants :"undisciplined life."
12) The NIV has "appeared." It means the same thing as revealed or manifested.
13) The NIV has "love of God." Van wants "love of mankind." Several translations have that. But the wording
"love of God" is quite clear. God has love for humanity. It's obviously not referring to animals or plants!
14) The NIV has "offering." Van prefers "sacrifice." But they are one and the same. It's pointless.
15) Van has his own unique preference here. It's not found anywhere else. It is pointless.
16) No practical difference. It is pointless.
17) "The NIV has "atoning sacrifice" as does the CSB, ISV, NET, NRSV and WEB, among others. It's perfectly adequate.
18) See # 17.
19) Pointless.
20) Van gets a point here.
21) The NIV has "Obey the Lord." as does the CSB, ISV, NET and NLT. What's the big deal?
22) See #21.
23) See # 21.
24) Van's rendering is a knock-off of the NIV, yet he tries to put down the NIV's wording anyway. Sheer lunacy.
25) The NIV, MOUNCE and ISV have "weigh carefully." The CSB, CEB, LEB, NET and NLT have "evaluate."
The ESV and NRSV have simply "weigh." Talk about nitpickers!
26) The NIV has "who is in you" as does the WEB, NET, Mounce, LEB, ISV, CSB, etc. Van's translation is non-existent.
27) Van's preference is for "some of you." That is an example of wresting Scripture. That's serious, and of course --pointless.
28) Van's preference is found nowhere except in his head. Need I say it? I will indeed. His point is pointless.

So the grand tally is 16 pointless points for Van. Ten others are just plain silly. And two positive ones for Van. Sorry Van. You have failed.

 

Still no on topic response. One must conclude KVB knows of no improvements needed in the NIV.

 

Yet another "taint so" post.
Rippon2 rebuttal is pointless.

Let us start with point #4, translating a Greek word that means "children" as it the meaning was "friends." Ask yourselves why the mistranslation? Answer, the NIV is untrustworthy. They change the meaning of the inspired words, to conform to their doctrinal beliefs.

Lets do one more, #5. In Acts 13:50 the NIV adds a word to the text to alter the meaning, but does not indicate the addition. Rippon2 says identifying alterations of the text by addition, deletion, and meaning change is silly. I disagree.

 

That was my required bible software for college! Would get the Accordance for Windows today!

 

The revisions were done in order to appeal to Evangelical Feminism!
As there was a perceived need to get away from "male headship" readings in the Bible!
Update scriptures from their times of Male headship to current views and times!

 

I too purchased Gramcord when I was in collage way back in the 80s. These days I use Accordance.

 

For windows or Mac? Even back then Gramcord was rarely used, as seems most had Bibleworks!

 

Accordance, first for Windows but now I own a Mac.

When I started my operating system was DOS. I still have a Gramcord CD for Windows from 1998.

 

Why are you arguing? I gave you a point for that one. And I don't give out points willy nilly.

 

Back to the bold-faced lies of Y-1 --the false accuser.

I have given you about 200 challenges to back up your sinful charges over the years. You have never produced anything from the text of the NIV . And as I have told you, little one, if a charge cannot be found in the text of the NIV --the charge is a lie. Christians are told not to lie. That's Christianity 101. You are not even on a diet of milk apparently.

 

same Gramcord I still have!

 

www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
The Real Reason for the Revision
The explanation offered for the “updates” is also misleading in that it does not mention the real political and financial considerations that have caused the NIV committee to make three revisions within the past fifteen years. The considerations that set in motion this series of revisions are, however, indicated in a document that set forth a new “Policy on Gender-Inclusive Language” adopted by the committee in 1992. The document contains these paragraphs:

C. Authors of Biblical books, even while writing Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, unconsciously reflected in many ways, the particular cultures in which they wrote. Hence in the manner in which they articulate the Word of God, they sometimes offend modern sensibilities. At such times, translators can and may use non-offending renderings so as not to hinder the message of the Spirit.

D. The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.

The same committee wrote, in the Preface to the 1996 revision published in Great Britain, that they believed “it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit” (p. vii)

These statements represent a very controversial position in the realm of translation theory, and, as such, they deserve a full discussion. But I have treated the issue thoroughly in another place, 5 and so we will move on.

It is surely no coincidence that this position was adopted by the NIV committee less than two years after the publication of the New Revised Standard Version (1990), which gender-neutralized the language of the RSV, for the same reasons. The NIV committee members were simply following the lead of the NRSV committee. But because the NIV was being used by a more conservative constituency, a strong reaction arose against the NIV revision of 1996, which led to some discussions with conservative ministry leaders in America. In order to quell the controversy, which threatened to depress sales of the New International Version, representatives of the International Bible Society (IBS) then agreed to refrain from publishing the revision, or anything like it, in America. But shortly afterwards they did publish a similar revision in America, under the name Today’s New International Version, while giving assurances that the new revision would not replace the 1984 edition. In the marketing of the TNIV, the IBS sought to minimize controversy by claiming that the revision was not really motivated by a desire to avoid offending modern sensibilities, or by any attitude contrary to “patriarchalism.” It was claimed that their purpose was nothing other than to make the meaning of the text clear. This however was widely dismissed as an evasion, because the editing process which eliminated the words “man,” “father,” “son,” “brother” “his,” etc., had obviously nothing to do with any considerations about the meaning of the original words, or with any desire to make the meaning clear. It is not even credible that such arbitrary and mechanical changes would have been done by a committee of scholars, and we may assume that it was done by style editors employed by the publisher. The TNIV did not sell very well. But it seems that IBS officials were determined to make this gender-neutralizing revision sell, because after six years of TNIV failure they announced that another revision would replace the 1984 NIV—and this turned out to be just a minor revision of the TNIV, rebranded as the NIV.

In their revision of the TNIV, it seems that the committee has now looked at the gender-neutralizing changes that were made, and it has modified many of them. We see, for example, the changes in Psalm 1.

1984 NIV

2005 TNIV

2011 NIV

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.

Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law day and night. They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.

Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night. That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.

The change here was made in response to criticism of the TNIV which used this verse as an example of the loss of meaning that often happens when plurals are substituted for singulars. As I wrote in 2005, the substitution of plurals does significantly interfere with the sense here, because “the one man whose delight is in the law of the Lord is set in opposition to the many ungodly ones around him. But when the man is made to disappear into a group of genderless people, then a part of the meaning of this passage is lost.” 6 And so the revisers have made it singular again. But we also see that they still refuse to use the word “man” or any masculine pronouns, leading to the awkward substitution “that person,” and the ungrammatical use of “they” with a singular antecedent. This continues to be objectionable, because the stylistic taboo against using the word “man” forces inaccuracy and clumsiness in the translation, and it has nothing to do with making the meaning clear. It is simply a “politically correct” avoidance of masculine terms.

In June of 2011 the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) published a critique of the 2011 NIV, which describes and criticizes the gender-neutralizing alterations of the revision. The critique is carefully written, and I recommend it highly. It should be studied by those who are considering using this version. The critique rightly emphasizes the fact that the revision is designed “to water down or omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive.” This is the crux of the matter: the theoretical position taken by the NIV revisers, that the language of the version must be made inoffensive to the sensitivities of feminism. That is what makes the revision unacceptable to conservatives.

The “Brief Response” to this critique issued by the NIV committee does not engage or even acknowledge the central issue here. It is contemptuous and evasive. It claims that “the NIV translators have never been motivated by a concern to avoid giving offense.” But this directly contradicts their own policy statement of 1992, which explicitly states that the purpose of the revision was to eliminate renderings that “offend modern sensibilities,” and it contradicts the evidence of the version itself. Again, this is what makes the NIV revision so offensive, on theoretical grounds. It not only introduces thousands of inaccuracies, it requires us to accept a very objectionable de facto rule of translation. And to make matters worse, the revisers are not even willing to talk about the rule that led to these revisions.

 

Who said you give out anything of value? I am simply pointing out the flaws in the NIV are a dime a dozen. You say "taint so."
I provided the basis for the flaws I addressed. You countered with '"pointless" and "silly."

 

The baseless basis you advanced was "should read." That's it. Nothing more. That is a big
fat nothing burger as they used to say. I've asked around. There is no foundation to merely proclaim
"should read" even with your advanced background (chuckle, chuckle) in Bible translation.

 

If the above is true then it must be found in the text of the NIV. If the above is false then all of the above are just lies.

I am going to give references from the N.T. of the NIV. All of them deal with the family, wives, husbands elders --one or more of the above.
1 Cor. 7:1-16
1 Cor. 11:1-16
1 Cor. 14:34,35
Eph. 5:21-33
Col. 3:18
1 Tim. 3:1-13
1 Tim. 5:17-21
Titus 1:5-9
1 Peter 3:1-7
1 Peter 5:1-10

You have never, and that means never, quoted any passage from the NIV which supports your lying claims that there are places where 'male headship' is being promoted.

You have never been man enough, or Christian enough, to produce any part of the NIV text that promotes "Evangelical Feminism."

And from your past history on the BB you have made claims that the NIV waters down distinctions of gender roles.
That the NIV promotes the idea that women, not men should be the heads of families.
That the NIV advocates incremental steps to the acceptance of homosexuality among Christians.

Each and every one of the above charges are contemptible.

You claim to be a Christian? Well prove it by telling the truth once and for all.No more stupid links. I gave you 10 passages that deal with subject matter pertaining to your claims. If you can't support any of your charges by going to these texts, then admit you have been violating a major component of a Christian's conduct. You need a cleansing.

Ignoring the gravity of your continual conduct is shameful. But I predict, based on your past behavior, that's just what you'll do. You have never faced up to the consequences of your actions. I'll tell you what --God doesn't grant you the liberty of continuing to lie.

 

You posted the OP. You made many points but can't identify where you got them. I have answered your question regarding the NIV. If you think I'm going to believe these accusations, you made, without any evidence that it's true, it won't happen.

I do my own research, that's how I found the KJV discrepancies in 1 John 5:10 and 2 Timothy 4:13.

You sound angry, are you?

 

Correction : You have never, and that means never, quoted any passage from the NIV which supports your lying claims that there are places where 'male headship' is being denied.

 

What did you think of the Bible researcher take?

 

First, you say silly and pointless, then "nothing burger." You are describing your analysis of the NIV flaws.

 

Yes I posted a list of NIV flaws, not the OP of this thread, and you have not pointed to any flaws (unless I missed them) in the NIV. If your view is the NIV has no flaws, you are acting like a KJVO person who claims the KJV has no flaws. And you assertion I said or suggested you were a KJVO person is simply another mischaracterization to sidetrack the discussion.

As for the source, the flaws are presented, and are self evident. Just read them and agree, or disagree. To make an argument from authority (it is true because a big wig said so) is a logical fallacy.