Is The 2011 NIV basically The TNIV reselling?

The 2011 NIV is a slightly modified TNIV. The translators moved towarda bit more of a form-driven approach. It has a smidgen less inclusive language --still less than the NRSV and NLTse,but only somewhat more than the NET Bible.

I like many of the decisions of the translators in the 2011 incarnation. I also prefer some of the TNIV readings to the 2011 NIV renderings.

The critics have less ammo to aim at this time. Criticism has been rather muted compared with the stuff villanizing the TNIV.

Actually the 2011 NIV would read quite like the old 84 most of the time with readers of that edition sitting in the pews listening to the Word of God.

 

Lets see, the TNIV altered the text of the NIV 1984 about 3600 times to tickle the ears of the PC crowd, whereas the NIV2011 only altered the 84 with about 2700 gender specific renderings being obliterated.

 

There are some changes here and there. I believe the official report was that 91.37% of the words are the same between the NIV84 AND NIV11 and that only 8.63% of the words where changed. (check a detailed report at: http://biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/)

The NIV11 rejoiced 269 words (or .86%) of words from the TNIV to the NIV11. Between the NIV84 and the NIV11 they removed 32,863 words and added 34,469.

In reading some of the data there are some confusing definitions and usage of stats. Perhaps I'll take some time and run all these numbers down at some point this weekend.

From my perspective, having read the executive summary, listening to the case made by the translators, and then engaging in the actual text of NIV11 I'm not convinced that the changes made were sufficient for the republication of a revised text. Doesn't make sense to me because I don't see significant passages and changes that warranted such a move.

Though I am cautious to say that Zondervan made a marketing decision with this republication (I do acknowledge that Bibles are big business) I will say that they seem to listen heavily to scholars who were advocating for the change.

Frankly, I'm not buying new physical copies of the Bible anymore. Maybe I'll go out and pick up some fairly plain text ones (i.e. not a lot of notes or cross reference stuff to clutter the page) and hand them out to people I'm discipling or new Christians. This decision doesn't ultimately affect me much.

I don't see my peers rushing out to their closest Lifeway...ooops...Barnes and Noble to buy a brand spanking new copy. Honestly I'm getting tired of the constant push for new English translations. Do we really think that we've made such shocking discoveries that they really warrant such a massive investment of time, resources, and money every five years?

I'm happy with the field of English translations out there. My mainstay is the HCSB (yes, I know I am the definition of the pot noticing the kettle is black) because I think it reads better. I still use the NKJV, NASU, ESV, NIV(et al), NET, and JPS (OT work) for comparative work when developing lessons and sermons. But I don't fool with pulling physical copies of the texts off my shelf.

Having looked at the NIV11 I still don't care for the translation methodology and results in many passages. Here's the thing, I didn't care for the approach in the NIV84 either. IMHO, the gender neutral thing is a red-herring in this whole thing. There are some places they went too far but others the context clearly indicates the wording means something applicable to male and female. Nevertheless, I just don't think its a worthwhile investment for a church to consider going out and changing all of their pew Bibles from NIV84 to NIV11. Honestly I don't like either and the NIV11 reads so much like the NIV84 for 91% of the verses the cost-benefit ratio doesn't make much sense to me.

Phew, that was probably longer than you were looking for.

 

''Rejoiced'' --gotta' love it.

Better than what --the 2011 NIV,or some other translation(s)?

If your mainstay is the HCSB and you reject the 2011 NIV for being so poor in a number of areas --perhaps you haven't noticed that the 2011 NIV and HCSB are like kissing cousins.

I certainly agree with you here.

In my last post I said virtually the sdame thing minus your last phrase.

The ESV is estimated to be about 6% different from its parent the 1971 RSV. Was it worth it to publish it?

The 2007 NLTse has been upgraded twice now since its initial release in 1996. Was the overhaul worth it?

The 84 NIV was becoming dated. No translation can stand still while the language of its receptors has changed. It just makes sense for the NIV to have been revised,especially since the TNIV was tarred and feathered for ungodly reasons. The NIV in one form or another has been the number 1 selling English translation in the world for decades now. (Perhaps its the leading Bible translation period.) Do you advocate that the translation team just sit on their hands for several decades?

 

Apologies I meant replaced, my iPad's autocorrect is a sensitive thing...I actually can't stand it most of the time.

They are close in translation method though in any number of places I prefer the HCSB rendering to the NIV84/05/11. Just a personal opinion. If you use the NIV11 that's awesome. Keep doing it. I'm just expressing my limited point of view and not making it mandatory for anyone else.

Glad we agree. My home convention (SBC) looks pretty stupid with this non-binding resolution.

You know I look at the RSV and it needed a change. The NRSV was a train wreck and didn't do an adequate job providing a better translation. (Plus all the input from translators deemed not credible by evangelicals) I think one can make a case for the ESV, but I wouldn't be someone doing it from a strong position.

Yes, I do. I hope that we've gotten this updating craze out of our systems. Let's make a pact right now and say no new translations for 20 years....please! Some additions are okay from time to time but I think we've flooded the market at this point. I can honestly say that between now and the time I go to receive my reward (I plan on living to be 100 so that's a while) I don't want to see a new translation out on the market.

The NIV is one example and the most recent (and germane to this thread.) But I don't see the point. It certainly can't be to sell more Bibles because within 5 to 10 years about 50% of our parishioners will be exclusively electronic. And you aren't gonna get people to pay for a new translation on their Youversion app...they'll go to the next free (and equally as good) translation.

I think the only reasonable argument for the NIV11 is that scholarship has made so many advances in the past 27 years that it was time to update. I can accept that, but the updates are so minuscule it doesn't hash out.

Nevertheless, I did go and add the NIV11 to my Accordance library for research purposes. But I'm not going to do the same for a physical copy. Plus you can get a really good deal on NIV84s...lol