What led to the DEMISE of the NIV84? Gender Neutrality and the TNIV vs the ESV & HCSB
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- This video explores a fascinating point in time where the TNIV was produced while other translations, namely the ESV and HCSB, came on the scene in the middle of debates about gender neutrality in Bible translation.
Article referenced:
www.cbeinterna...
You can become a supporter of A Frisch Perspective at:
/ timfrisch
Buy my book God Matters at:
amzn.to/3laK3Fo
Title music in this video from bensound.com
Composer: Benjamin Tissot (also known as Bensound)
Artist: incompetech.com/
The '84 is the last of the NIV's that I still use. Post debacle, and when the ESV became available, it quickly earned my trust. Ultimately, my "text" journey and study of the textual basis of the NT brought me to the NKJV. But my NIV '84 is a treasured possession.
That’s interesting.
I’ve been toying with the idea of adding either a KJV or NKJV to by (hard copy) collection.
I haven’t really read the NJKV but isn’t it fairly similar in flavour to the ESV languagewise? I mean apart from the scripture base?
Or am I gravely wrong.
@@spykezspykez7001 -- The ESV tends to be clumsier and more wordy than the NKJV. The NKJV is basically the KJV put into 20th-century English, with a few rewordings in places where increased knowledge of the ancient languages has shown us that the 1611 translators did not fully understand what the original writers were trying to say.
Same for me ... do you bible gateway? ... and if so, what about that version of NIV? ... I have my handwritten notes in my NIV1984.
@@spykezspykez7001 Both are good translations depending on your preference for the text basis and stance on gender neutrality. Generally, my sense is the NKJV and ESV read differently in accordance with their tradition. The ESV feels similar to the RSV and the NKJV retains much of the feel of the KJV. Having read both, I'd say their "flavors" are notably different.
Thanks. Yes, I like the ESV precisely because it feels like an RSV.
But you know, the KJV contributed a lot to the English language, I should get myself a hard copy.
This thing can get slightly out of hand, can’t it? Collecting bibles? ;)
Would have liked to see the 1984 still in print and the so called gender neutral / more gender accurate versions never to have seen the light of day.
same
But they tried destroying the 84 whether they can. They are trying to pretend it was always this translation. Thereby changing morality itself. Calling Good Evil and Evil Good.
Tinkering around with the ‘84 niv triggers the CSB and ESV. But these latter translations would have struggled for popularity if the ‘84 had still been available.
My first bible was text only with a few translation notes, a basic subject index and little else. I didn't understand what I was reading, couldn't easily find bible verses or stories that other people around me referenced with ease. I was barely motivated to read it, much less persevere to understand, with the lack of reference and study aids.
After 10 years of struggling with (mostly putting aside) that bible, I bought an 1985 NIV(84) Study Bible which unlocked the bible and a whole new world for me🙂 The text was modern, easy to understand, yet reverential English. The study notes filled in my lack of understanding (and a fair few misunderstandings). I could easily find verses and passages I was looking for, word/topical studies and answers to questions using the concordance. I loved that bible, memorised verses in it, included scriptures in my prayers grew in knowledge, and my relationship and love for Christ increased.
Fast forward another 10 years, and had a desire to read through the whole bible (which I hadn't yet done to that point). My NIV Study Bible was a good study bible, but I found the study notes and cross references too distracting for straight reading. Wanted to find a reasonably-priced text-only NIV that was easy on the eyes (I have very sensitive vision). At the local Christian bookstore, the TNIV dominated the NIV section. The NIV84 text-only options on the shelf were out of my budget or harsh on the eye/unpleasant to read.
Preferring not to leave empty-handed, I browsed through text-only offerings in other bible versions in store. If not an NIV, I wanted a translation that was a similar dynamic equivalent. My eye landed on a few HCSB bibles on the bottom shelf in the NIV section. I'd never heard of this translation and it piqued my interest. From the blurbs on the back covers and dust jackets, the HCSB translation seemed to be a similar dynamic equivalent to NIV84. I read the biblical text and liked what I read. It felt similar to NIV, yet some of the wording conveyed meanings I hadn't picked up from the NIV alone. One of the HCSBs had a particularly nice pleasant font size and type, paper, margin, line spacing and contrast, so home it came with me.
I read that bible through, and compared it with my NIV. Reading through the bible in the HSCB translation deepened my biblical understanding and appreciation, could see the bigger picture and I noticed things I'd never picked up just through piecemeal bible reading/studying. I grew to love the HCSB version as much as I do the NIV84 - similar, but also different and complementary to each other.
My main bible is now the Orthodox Study Bible and I've acquired bibles in a few other different translations since that initial HSCB readthrough. In general, I prefer to stick with more literal translations like NKJV these days and steer away from gender "neutered" versions. However, NIV84 and HCSB remain two of my favourite translations. 🥰
Thanks for covering this Mr. Frisch. This was a pretty big controversy at the time, the biggest translation debacle of my lifetime. The NIV84 very much WAS the translation of non-denominational mainstream conservative churches. I grew reading the NIV84 and the church I went to at the time dropped the NIV after the revision came out and deliberated between the NKJV and the ESV. They decided on the NKJV because there was talk of an ESV revision in the near future, of course the ESV revision that came out in 2016 was actually very minor. Hopefully translation teams and publishers have learned from this, the controversy over Lockman's NASB2020 revision doesn't overly convince me...
A few years back, Evangelical Bible had some NIV 84 Cambridge Bibles for sale. They said these would be the last NIV 84 for sale and it was the Study Bible. I leapt on the chance to get this beautiful Bible in the 84 text because by then I realised what was happening with Bible translation updates. I’m so glad I did and that NIV 84 is still a treasure. Frankly I wish they would stop changing bible texts. I love the NASB - 77 and 95 (not the 2020 update) and the NKJV. Your background to the ESV and CSB was interesting. One might also say that the push for gender inclusive language gave rise to the LSB?
What most people don't realize is that the current NIV (2011) is NOT an update of the NIV84, but rather an update of the TNIV. The fact that this isn't really known seems a little deceptive.
Oh, wow!
Thank you! I really enjoy these translation history videos.
In 1990, I bought a 10 year anniversary edition of the NIV from the International Bible Society. We were a homeschooling family, so I thought it might help in the Bible lessons. Nope. No one liked it, including me. So it went on the shelf. And there it stays. We adopted the NKJV, and stayed with that one until both sons graduated in '99 and 2000.
Anyway, thanks again for the history!
NIV 84 holds a special place for me. I have 4 copies of the NIV 84, three of them study bibles. I was reading an NIV 84, the night I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. I read the NIV 84 daily.
The 84 NIV is one of my favorite of my three favorites. Or is it four? But its really up there.
Please, where did you buy the 1984 version of the NIV bible, please? I need a brand new one and large print. Please can you send me a link? Thank you
@@bryellekengne9411 Have you searched Ebay for one? There are plenty of them available there.
What is frustrating is that now- Lifeway is using the NIV 2011. And this pretty much is what is indicative of the problems with the SBC. As the HCSB was a very good translation. Updating the HSCB to the CSB, was in fact a generational change, too soon and based on lack of bible sales outside of the Southern Baptist sphere. Frustrating- however had the 1984 niv not been tossed aside, we would not had the ESV , or HCSB ( albeit the CSB). So good things ( blessings), can come to unfortunate situations . Good discussion Tim.
The CSB is growing in popularity. It has reached well into the top 5 translations and is trending toward being just behind the NIV and ESV. So we will likely end up with the top 3 translation coming in existence as reactions to the changing of the NIV 84.
It is sad that under all the feminist, political and wokeness pressures, the NIV 84 was killed. Zondervan publishers systematically squashed the NIV 84, including going into all Bible apps (YouVersion, Olive Tree, etc.) and replacing any NIV 84 downloaded versions with their “new and improved” 2011 version.
One can’t even obtain the 1984 version in these apps. (Unlike the AMP which still is available in AMPC (Amplified Classic Edition), the 1984 NIV is gone, further demonstrating the power of the copyright and “selling of the scriptures.”
This is a classic process of compromise in our seeker friendly, modern “gospel” movement: Push to some worldly extreme, gauge the backlash, and then pull back from the edge just enough to avoid further controversy. But they achieve the goal of incrementally pushing further and further towards the “world” and their ways. Sad!
At the time I had a pre-1984 NIV and when I heard they were getting rid of it, I bought a Cambridge wide margin and Pitt Minion of the NIV84. So glad I did. I'm still using them today.
I was saved reading John chapter 3 in the NIV84 and it was the first translation I read all the way through. Thus, it has a special place in my heart. Frankly, I'm done with the NIV2011, as the changes they made affected the clarity of portions of Messianic prophecy fulfillment from the Old to New Testament quotations. It's truly sad that you can't get any new, printed copies of the NIV84 now. Though not perfect, that was a great translation.
"Messing with the clarity of portions of Messianic prophecy fulfillment from the Old Testament to the New Testament" is extremely serious. Wow. For one thing, one very important thing, those Scriptures are critical in Jewish evangelism. NOT to be messed with!
Agreed.
I still read from the NIV '84. I will continue reading it until the day I die. It is a most excellent translation.
Except at John 1:13, which is atrociously bad!
@@gregb6469 there's no issue with that verse at all, not in the 84.
@@DarikStone -- Yes there is, because the passage has nothing to do with husbands.
@@gregb6469 I don't think that whether or not someone was a husband is relevant in significance to the total passage, but a highlight. The passage was rather lending generalization to parents as the co.authority by God to give birth in the first place, but by God only can one be spiritually reborn. Husband, because in mortal hiarchy is the authority of family, but spiritually, God is .
Thus, "not even a husband" but by God only.
We are born spiritually dead, and can only authorize spiritually dead birth.
That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit.
And that's what God does according to John 1:13
It's really not totally off. It makes really good sense.
@@DarikStone -- All other major translations just read 'will of man', meaning that a person's salvation is not determined by the decision of another person, be he a father, a king, or whoever. The term husband, while not incorrect, is not wide enough in this context. The point of the verse is that salvation is not determined by physical birth, autonomous free-will decision, or the say-so of a higher-ranking (in either the familial or political realm) man; it is God's call.
Great video showing that bible translation is first and foremost a business. It is no longer done by the church and for the church.
The KJV was a government project, and its underlying Textus Receptus was somewhat money driven. Erasmus rushed to finish Revelation, translating part of it back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate because he had no manuscript for that portion and was rushing to get his text to market before someone beat him to the punch. While Harper Collins (NIV, NKJV) is a for-profit enterprise, Crossway (ESV), Lifeway (CSB), and Lockman (NASB) are non-profit organizations.
Thanks for the comparisons between these translations, Tim. I have all the translations you mentioned but can tell you that most of my friends still carry the NIV 84. In addition to these I have current versions of the NKJV and NASB.
I have the NIV 84 in bonded leather mint condition.
I’m disappointed that the 1984 NIV was discontinued. It should have continued just like the NASB 1977 & 1995, in addition to the NASB 2020.
I’ve used the NIV84 ever since I received a copy as a Christmas present in December 1984. When my original copy gave up the ghost, I ordered a new copy in August 2013. However, I find it very hard to find any more copies of the NIV84, and wish Biblica would continue to publish the NIV84 as a “Classic” or “Legacy” edition.
Honestly, I don’t like the gender-inclusive versions of the TNIV or NIV2011. Paul and the other Biblical authors used gender-specific language for good reasons, and we should honor the texts they wrote, especially given that we believe that the words they wrote are the very words of God.
The NIV84 was a great translation, they should have just left it alone. The gender neutral updates ruined it for a lot of people. Most people I know who read a modern version are using either the NKJV or the ESV.
The HCSB was also an answer to problem of Southern Baptists having to pay Zondervan/Biblica copyright fees on all its publications (Sunday School and Discipleship Training literature, etc.) Prior to the HCSB, our SS lit. was either in KJV or NIV.
If you use all three, HCSB, NIV-84, KJV You have a good study method if you're from North America.
I avoided the TNIV and am really frustrated with th 2011 NIV. Thankfully the ESV has entirely replaced the NIV in my personal reading.
The question of gender-neutral (or gender-inclusive) language really is a thorny one, and really comprises two sub-questions: when is it *valid* to use such language, and when is it *necessary* to do so? To pick an easy example, pretty much any place Paul uses "brothers" (or adelphoi), he's referring to the whole congregation, both men and women. A gender-inclusive expression would accurately translate this, particularly in a translation that's already fairly dynamic. I'd question whether it's necessary--I don't think any reasonable reader would (or even could) read, e.g., 2 Thes 3:6 in such a way that the command only applied to the men in the church, and not the women. But it would accurately capture the meaning of the text to render "brothers and sisters," or to add a note that the term was inclusive. I seriously question whether any of the changes I'd consider legitimate would actually be necessary, but I accept that others can differ on the question.
But there are lots of places where gendered language is required. Male pronouns are used for all three members of the Trinity, and that isn't by accident. Jesus specifically uses gendered terms in Matthew 19:5 (among other places); significant meaning would be lost if it were rendered, "for this reason a person will leave his parents and be united to their spouse." To do so would be a mistranslation. Or to begin the Lord's Prayer with "Our Parent." Or to translate the qualifications for church office in a gender-neutral fashion. Or...
It's actually a mistranslation which tilts the debate about women in the priesthood. Or the sex roles of ancient Israelite society.
Which is against what the actual manuscripts say. It is a deliberate distortion of God's word to invert what we regard as good and evil.
@@johnrockwell5834 Well, aside from the issue that there is no distinct class of "priesthood" in the church age, what, exactly, is a mistranslation of which of the actual manuscripts?
Well, if we look at the major translations that use extensive gender-inclusive language, here's what we see in Matthew 19.5.
- NRSVUE: and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
- NIV: and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
- CEB: And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’
- NLT: And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’
Wow. It kinda looks like they're pretty responsible on this issue, doesn't it? I'm starting to suspect that the people who object to these translations are exaggerating the matter...
@@danbrown586
Search up the evaluation of gender language NIV 2011 by the council of biblical manhood and womanhood.
I like the TNIV; I know that some are trouble by the translation philosophy. However, I think that it reads really well.
Marketing and money is having too much influence on translations.
Thank you for the great explanation. glad I have two Thompson Chain Reference 1984 Bibles and a chronological 1984 NIV. I also use a KJV, NKJV and a NLT prayer bible. Most of my time has been in the NIV.
It feels like the 84 and the CSB are very similar.
I don't care for any of the NIV editions, least of all the 'inclusive' versions. I'll stick to my NKJV, thank you.
I feel old that you don’t remember this!!!
Right or wrong, I remember feeling very lied to by this process. My memory was the TNIV release was completely a flop. They said they would not touch the standard NIV but instead took away the TNIV and put most of the changes into NIV.
I was a fairly new Christian and put a good amount of money into resources based on NIV. It really made me mad
Yes, we were lied to, about the NIV 1984 continuing to be available.
Just use the CSB and all will be well.
I'm a proud reader of the nasb1995, probably the most accurate Bible version for Americans
Going back in time, I just do not see the HCSB or the ESV being a serious competitor's go the NIV 1984. Maybe now, but not back then. The NIV 2011 opened the door for these and other translations
I have a paperback TNIV which I got for reference purposes. I have read the 1979 Anglicised NIV which printing I still prefer.
I love the 1984 NIV.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the NIV 78, what led to its demise and what are the differences between between it and the 84 update.
Very good video, as usual. My understanding, however, is that the cause / effect is somewhat different than what Mr. Frisch describes. IBS (and or CBT?) was working incognito on making the NIV gender inclusive when World Magazine blew their cover with its famous "Stealth Bible" cover story. I recall that as being the catalyst for the uproar. Then the IBS and/or CBT somewhat misrepresented themselves by stating that nothing was going to change but then changed it anyway. That's probably an oversimplification. I infer that what transpired is that a large portion of the evangelical community lost trust in the NIV (in any edition) and thus could no longer support it as their primary translation, hence the development of the HCSB/CSB and ESV. Those translations may have contributed to people abandoning the NIV, but it was because of the NIV's committees' actions previously and wasn't done in a vacuum.
With regard to the translators, I don't see a conflict of interest, as I think many/most of them became dissatisfied and critical of the NIV prior to working on other translations, and that the former led to the latter. It's less a case of starting to work on a new translation than criticizing the NIV in order to promote the new one(s). My take is that those translators have shown more integrity than have those controlling the NIV.
I'd be interested to read of any different viewpoints on what transpired.
I read the 1979 NIV regularly and I can’t find ANY information about it online. I have a 2011 but I never really read it because I love how the 79 was written. Wh’appen?
If I remember correctly, the 1979 was the second printing run of the NIV which was first printed in 1978. The NIV New Testament was released in 1975 or 76 with the complete Bible following in 78. There were some changes between the 78 and 79, but I’m not sure how extensive they were. When the 84 edition came out, Zondervan dropped the earlier ones. So, now the 78’s and 79’s are hard to find. I sure would like to find a decent 78 or 79 NIV - I keep checking garage sales and thrift stores, but I have not had any luck finding one.
@@terrycairl5479 The copyright page in my NIV has a copyright of 1978. It is a 5th printing dated 1982. The page also says that the NIV New Testament was first copyrighted in 1973.
This is important to know it's out there. Thank you.
Kind of funny how they went back on their word about the 84. They pulled it from all the sales outlets and online when the 2011 came out - citing there is only one NIV, and it's the 2011 - until the NIV'r came out very soon after. It is like they were embarrassed that the 84 existed. Really strange behavior from a translator group. Lockmen still lets publishers carry the NASB77. So it's kind of odd.
There is no logical reason as to why they aren’t still printing the NIV 84. They’re just persisting in their misguided decisions
It seems most people I know who preferred the NIV84 moved onto the ESV. Do you think if the NIV84 were in print today that it could compete with the ESV and CSB? The ESV in particular comes in so many nice editions that I think it would be a hard row to hoe.
@@MM-jf1me The CSB is everything that ever wanted from the NIV84, but I’ve yet to find an edition that I like. Hopefully they’ll release something next year that does it for me.
The ESV is very different than the NIV. It’s in the KJV English stream, with a different underlying text. The NIV was a fresh modern English translation
I would buy a couple of NIV 84
I love the NIV84 but when they came out with the changes, I lost confidence in it although I continue to use it. I did move to the ESV as my primary translation. I did read the Holman when it came out but never used it much. I have gotten a CSB and plan to read through it soon. Thanks to Bible Gateway I have been reading the NIV 2011 and found it is not as bad as I feared.
I love my NIV 1984. I've lostened to some readings of the new NIV version and they changed some colloquial sayings, which disappoints me. For example, instead of "I will make you a stench in the nostrils of., " it reads I will make you obnoxious to..." I wish they would reprint this version because mine is paperback.
Why use Gender Accurate vs Gender Inclusive? The comments you read from indicated they were going for gender inclusive and then you said "what they might now call gender accurate". Is Gender Accurate simply a whitewashing of a term that conservatives don't like? That's what it sounds like. I think you have another video explaining what you mean by this terminology shift, so I'm off to watch that one.
I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more. The problem of the demise of the 84 NIV falls squarely on the creators of the TNIV and the 2011 NIV.
The most precious commodity for a Bible translation is trust. The NIV lost that. The ESV and CSB are the result of the loss of trust in the NIV.
I have a 1984 and it's wonderful 😊
Thanks for the great video.
I still own a few copies of the TNIV, and I think I may have an audio Bible version of it somewhere. I think I used it only once, but beyond that and actually reading through the whole thing once it just takes up space.
I grew up on the NIV. The church I went to provided every man, woman and child with a Bible. They gave all high school children the Student Bible...I still have it nearly 30 years later. Until recently, I wasn't aware the NIV84 was totally out of print.
Never read the TNIV...by that time I was in a KJVO church. I'm not anymore, but when TNIV was around, it wasn't really an option.
I feel like the "issue" of "gender inclusive language"(which the NIV 2011 does not actually have) is one brought about by a subset of people that don't actively speak a second or third language. Not to be rude to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but as anyone who knows or speaks a gendered language (Spanish, French, etc.) it's very obvious that the use of "Brothers and Sisters" isn't a wrong or liberal translation at all.
For instance in Spanish we have the word Hermanos, which can be translated as brothers. However it can also be used to refer to a mixed gendered group in the same way you'd refer to in English as "Siblings." This rule also applies to the Greek "Adelphoi" which can be used to either refer to "Brothers" or to a mixed group as "Siblings" i.e. "Brothers and Sisters." Likewise the more older english word "Brethren" applies the same typology in its usage rules.
All in all, after reading and comparing several translations I have found the NIV2011 is not actually any more or less liberal/conservative than the ESV or NASB or other modern evangelical bibles. Doctrinally nothing changes and it's clear from the context what is referring to whom. This isn't a case like other certain translations which are downplaying divinely given gender roles or the sin of homosexuality. The NIV is very clear that pastors should be a husband with only one wife and that homosexuality is an abomination before God. The only times "Brothers and Sisters" even come up is when the Word is actively addressing a mixed congregation. To which I say if you have an issue with that then you most likely probably should have an issue with your pastor for doing the same exact thing, because I've yet to see any English speaking pastor who was talking to a mixed congregation as just "Brothers" in all my years.
(Also additional funfact: the NIV2011 actually follows a closer suit to the NKJV than any other modern translation. Something to think about.)
The former translation says. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man.
The NIV 2011 says women shouldn't teach or assume authority over a man.
Notice the subtle opening for women in the priesthood.
There are other places where in the Old Testament male roles like the military. No longer has mention of David's mighty men or that people are of their father's family or father's house as the 84 translation accurately translates.
It is completely contrary to the actual manuscripts.
@@johnrockwell5834 My brother, I will not argue about this matter any further.
If this is a stumbling block for you then I, in fact implore, you to throw away your NIV and never think of it again. It is better for all of us to put the right focus on God before all else. Likewise if someone is being saved and learning from the NIV I say leave them be, and if they somehow do get bad doctrine from it to correct them all the same. Remember ALL bibles can give birth to bad doctrine. Word of Faith, Hebrew Isrealites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons are almost all entirely KJV Only. Does that make the KJV unholy and corrupted? Of course not! But man will always twist what is obvious into something that will please their own flesh.
God bless, and have a wonderful day!
@@Byron.D
My point still stands. If they can distort and invert what God says. Then they can remake God in their own image rather than the true God and his character.
Imagine if someone edits the letters of your loved one to you. And distorts what they are really like.
@Byron D You raise an interesting point. I guess it would be a question of what to do the original Hebrew and Greek imply.
I think you stopped short of articulating my primary agitation regarding literalism and legalism in theological conception;
* Heirs on the throne not men on the throne..... it's Male heirs and everyone knows what a King is. The point wasn't a "king" but lineage and covenant, yes we know it's a guy unless there is a lack of proper heir which is a whole different issue and game of thrones ensues...
* Only begotten son missing means heresy but saying begotten directly implies creation of the being known as the son, as does son..... so really your christology is just that and your preferred anthropomorphic metaphor is just that, but people can't get deep enough to even know what that means so really they're just virtue signaling what they're taught to parrot. Then issues of trinity out of infinity when trinity is never mentioned, why have multiple aspects of one consciousness acting (semi) autonomously when there wasn't anything to interact with BEFORE CREATION and it gets really weird. I like THOSE conversations, the pick a verse per chapter and instigate perpetual dogma is disgusting. That's a poor way to pick a bible translation, personal theology, denomination, etcetera.
Also the sola scriptura dogma: if it's sufficient then why are we having these discussions, discourses, debates, arguments, polemics, etcetera? The word predates creation, we're just talking about books written to edify us by divinely inspired men, and that's with corrupted language after the Curse of Babel messing us up! It's all paraphrase and summarization of chronicles and parables, and that's too much to comprehend. Hysterics regarding ancient Hebrew verb tense or Greek metaphor aren't the point of the message, and I think NIV tends to hit the real points authoritatively as a hammer. I like ESV for more technical depth but it can be vague by lack of specificity in those details at times. Personally I like the male gender stuff and "begotten" but I know their limits and I understand they're unnecessary speedbumps at times. If the bible starts addressing trans martyrs and cisgender bigots, I'll sound the alarm, until then...... read multiple versions and develope a coherent theology.
You can still buy a new 1984 NIV. A Schofield Study Bible 3 NIV version uses the 1984 NIV and not the 2011.
I've only ever heard of the TNIV because while looking for a good audio Bible I came across The Bible Experience, which is based on the TNIV, which is a shame since so many people search for specific translations of audio Bibles and The Bible Experience is amazing! They got a huge cast of A-list celebrities and the voice acting is phenomenal. I think this particular audio Bible would have been far more popular had it been made based on an older or newer version of the NIV.
Were is the 1978 version.?
I still have a '78 NIV Gideon NT that I got back in college. 😊
What is the difference between the 1978 and 1984 NIV?
They still produce the NIV 1984 edition.
This makes such a heads up case for Bible buyers and users to be aware of the impact of our culture negatively on Bible translations. It's good that we now have access online to interlinear Bible translations back to the original languages, although that is not without its own pitfalls. May we also and foremostly each rely on the Holy Spirit to help us know what was originally intended.
Adding after reading some of the comments, that the Holy Spirit does use debates and conversations and comments among and from people who understand Hebrew and Greek grammar, which I do not. Always good to be reminded of one's limitations. And of course, this is one way the Holy Spirit can and does work. Thanks, Tim, for this video and thanks for providing an opportunity in the comments for people to be thoughtfully engaged on the topic. Blessings to all!
I wish I could get an 84NIV.
They’re all over eBay
@@elliottkos True. You can find copies in hard cover for $25.
I think the NIV 2011 vs NIV 1984 controversy is a natural response arising from the fact that people always resist change. Time will come when people will forget the NIV 1984 and take the NIV 2011 as normal. I have both versions of the bible and I have no problem with that. The deity of the Lord Jesus and the need for Salvation has not been compromised and that is what matters most.
Thanks!
I like HCSV. I never was an NIV fan except my Bible college and pastor used it.
Are we in violation of Revelation 22:18-19? Are we taking away from the message that God has for us? This is the thing that I fear the most.
I typically have not used an NIV, but recently the Lord sent me to a new church and they use an NIV so I got one with a 1978 copyright, I’ve not noticed any gender neutral language.
As a British Evangelical I didn't know of anyone who wanted a more gender inclusive NIV. Absolutely no one used the TNIV, it was a huge failure. The NIV'84 reigned supreme as the standard translation used by almost all Evangelicals. After 2011 churches were forced to either drop the NIV and switch to something else or hold their nose and get on board with the new version.
Yes, you are right about a us British Evangelicals’ not wanting a gender- inclusive NIV. When the surveys were done, the results were not acceptable to ecclesiastics and academics and publishers. Subsequently, downright lies and deception ensued, resulting in the outrageously childish and damaging Night of the Nobbling of the NIV. There was, and there is, no shame on the part of those responsible for the murder. But, there’s a sting in the tail. Even though the NIV 2011 is registered in the US as the best seller, year after year, that’s because the copies destined for abroad are included; but the serious readers of the NIV in the US is now only about 8%, - while the NLT is now 10% , and seems set to continue to push out the NIV from the “TOP 4” in the US. Here are the 2021 percentages for the versions preferred by serious readers in the US : KJV 33 + NKJV 18 = “KJV” 51 (as respondents often accidentally or deliberately lump both versions together) + ESV 16 + NIV 8 = “TOP 4” 75 + NLT 10 + CSB 4 + NRSV 4 + NASB 3 + Others 4 = TOTAL 100. It is clear that, as some of us have adopted for some time, we should adopt a policy of using our resources to promote and distribute the top four versions - KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV. We really do need an A4 desk/study edition of these four versions in parallel. Our advice is that every serious individual/ group/ church should have at least the following : 1. KJV - the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Westminster Reference Bible; 2. NKJV - Thomas Nelson’s Open Bible; 3. ESV - Crossway’s Study Bible; 4. NIV - Zondervan’s Study Bible (expanded and updated). (We are not sure that we would wish to oust the NIV for the NLT!). Incidentally, the KJV is understated in the US sales figures, because many copies are printed by bodies not making any central return os copies sold or donated.
The tniv is still in print. Thought you might want to know.
I bought a new NIV2011 when I was 13 having no idea it was any different from the NIV84 I knew and loved
I felt deceived and quite offended when I discovered that my specific beloved translation had been tampered with without my knowing
I still can't go back to the NIV after that, the whole thing feels super underhanded:
Step 1: Release the NIV84 which everyone loves
Step 2: Make the gender inclusive TNIV, it's super unpopular and your audience doesn't like it
Step 3: Just take the T off and replace everyone's NIVs with the revision they already proved they didn't want
Step 4: Cut off all publication of the NIV84 so loyal NIV fans are forced to adapt to your new revision
They would've had a lifelong supporter of the NIV, but instead my church switched to HCSB->CSB and I moved over to the ESV
A little more than a year later, my opinion has lightened somewhat. Having become familiar with the scholars of the NIV such as Douglas Moo and Bill Mounce, who are very brilliant, Christlike, evangelical christian men, I have to say that while I still have an issue with the update, it's primarily an issue with the publisher (mainly its somewhat misleading marketing tactics and immediate discontinuation of the NIV84 that it said wouldn't happen) rather than any specific decisions the translators made (other than a few specific verses that they just plainly got wrong. A certain passage in Numbers 5 comes to mind)
I have a TNIV and think it's a very good version. (I wish it were more than a cheap leatherette copy.) It's a shame the vast marketing potential of the Zondervan publishing empire dropped the ball. The ESV had a perfect storm of the TNIV marketing failure, public opinion on gender accurate/neutral language, and the marketing success of Crossway to establish itself in conservative (esp. Reformed) seminaries and congregations. In the '90's I thought the NIV was going to eclipse the KJV in sales, use and influence well into the 21st century. God had other plans...
tim, yes, i own a TNIV NT
I still use and have three niv 84. My 78 is gone. 😩. .. im sure they lost many sales. By not having the 84. The 2011 they can keep
For my money the CSB is the "update" of the NIV84.
Yeah I have used TNIV before
I think the coupling of translation revision with gender neutral nonsense makes it clear that they weren't interested in keeping the old edition around indefinitely. Blaming other translations sounds like a bad excuse.
I grew up on the KJV as a child and was introduced to the NIV84 when I became a believer. It has been my primary translation for a very long time.
Wanting to memorize more scripture and be able to refer to the exact wording I memorize is important to me. I don't like all the constant updates to the various versions and am now thinking the LSB will be something that I can transition to that won't be changing all the time. I'll still hold onto my NIV84, but will be glad to cite and share a translation I can actually find to buy!
That’s interesting.
Good or bad who can tell?
I find it mildly amusing.
You see, when I was young un I had Protestants beating me over the head (figuratively) with NIV84 saying I’d go to hell, I was using the wrong bible (Jerusalem Bible c 1966-7)
I suppose now it’s KJV crowd mostly, telling me the English bibles I now read are wrong too (RSV/ESV LoL!)
How times have changed. I think....
There's a documentary on the RSV that was made around 1990, maybe 91, while some of the original RSV translators were still alive. Near the end they talk about how the RSV was ultimately demonized by evangelicals for being too liberal and left wing, and they espoused people read the NIV instead, since it was their preferred Evangelical translation. Now look where we are with the NIV 😂
NASB anyone?
I Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil". The big publishing houses will vomit out whatever they think will make them money, and the Truth be damned. I hope they didn't mess around too much with the Book of Revelation. Anyone who adds to or takes away from the words of that prophecy will become a castaway.
Non-inspired version?
That's juvenile on your part.
I have an NIV I purchased in 1989. I gave it to my 6 year old daughter who never really used it. She thought it was too "paraphrased" and too liberal. Any changes made to it since has made it a train wreck. The CSB, NRSV, ESV,and NLT are all very liberal "woke" (not translations) revisions.
nope
I use the 95NASB with the KJV like all the other cool kids 😎
I think NIV should disappear altogether. The Word of God (OT) and the Holy Spirit guided NT should have NOTHING ADDED OR TAKEN AWAY. The NIV does both. It changes meanings , removes words and whole scriptures. If you have a copy of the NIV that does not align with the KJV line by line, verse by verse - burn it.
Say what? I can't even figure out what it is that you are saying.
Have it, not a fan of it.
What is "gender neutral" exactly? This is currently what I am studying. This has caused a lot of thought in my Bible study, and I see where some women, and especially girls who want to be saved can only see men and boys are offered salvation in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. This is very sad, especially when the Greek manuscripts show salvation is offered to all of us, not just men! Very poor translating in 1611 just because the culture then would not allow women to "speak in church" and are not offered salvation because of what Eve did ? Really? I have suffered just as much abuse as anyone growing up in these churches that do not understand the true translating would give us, as female believers. The translators have also changed the female names of Deaconesses to masculine names to cover-up what God's Word says.
The TNIV was a major improvement in the translation's accuracy, so I'm not sad to see the inferior product go. The 1984 edition was full of flagrant mistranslations, and the more recent editions have made some strides toward turning the NIV into a translation that can be taken seriously.
Except for the Gender language which has been deliberately mistranslated contrary to the original text. Which has been analyzed by the evaluation of gender language by the council of biblical manhood and womanhood.
@@johnrockwell5834 The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is very determined to translate the Bible in a way most unfavorable to women, yes. That's no secret.
Meanwhile, some of the actual problems with the 1984 NIV, such as its attempts to flat-out distort the text in the name of inerrancy, have been toned down in the 2011 edition.
@@MAMoreno
Because its accurate according to the manuscripts.
And they do acknowledge that there are improvements. But the gender language is far more errant than before.
If you read the Church Fathers they are more hardcore than you think.
You think CBMW is bad in your estimation. The Church Fathers and 2000 years of Church history is worse.
@@johnrockwell5834 It's not accurate to the manuscripts. It would be accurate to the manuscripts if English had grammatical gender (as, say, Spanish does), but it doesn't. It's misleading to translate terms referring to men and women as if they only refer to men.
@@MAMoreno
Its accurate. Man is used to represent humanity in many cases in the Bible.
Adam's fall led to the fall of the entire human race for example. So there is theological significance in using it in this way.
There are other issues that deviate from the actual manuscript like:
Note how circumventing the word “son” affects the phrase - “son of man” in some verses:
4) 1984 NIV Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for
him?
2011 NIV Psalm 8:4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care
for them?
10) The NIV (2011) changes “Women” to “weaklings’ in verses like Nahum 3:13; Isa. 19:16; Jer. 50:37; and Jer.51:30.
The 2011 NIV incorrectly changes “he” and “him” to “they” and “them”
6) 1984 NIV John 14:23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father
will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
2011 NIV John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father
will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
2) 1984 NIV 1 Samuel 18:2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his
father’s house.
2011 NIV 1 Samuel 18:2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home
to his family.
1984 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man; she must be silent.
2011 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a
man; she must be quiet.
And so on. This tilting of the translation away from accuracy is very insidious and mean to rewrite morality ultimately against God's actual word and 2000 years of Church Tradition.
The NIV 1984 VERSION IS THE MOST PERFECT WORD OF GOD, WHICH WHENEVER YOU READ IT YOU DIRECTLY COMPREHEND THE MIND OF GOD WITHOUT A NEED FOR AN INTERPRETATION. TAMPERING WITH THIS VERSION HAS BEEN A GREAT DISTORTION OF GOD'S MIND TO US, AND AN ATTACK FROM SATAN ON THE TRUTH. I HAVE NEVER READ ANY OTHER TRANSLATION SINCE THE YEAR 1999 THE LORD SAVED ME AND GAVE ME THAT NIV 1984 VERSION. IT IS TRULY LIVE FROM JESUS CHRIST TO US.
The 2011 NIV is unreadable.
Absolutely not.
If one is ok with a WOMAN being lifted up to the status of an APOSTLE... then I guess one would be ok with this translation... I know many women were followers of Christ in Jesus day and afterwards... but were any Apostles?..
according tothe TNIV Romans 16:7... at least ONE was... Junia...
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
calling a woman outstanding among the apostles?.. unless this word for "apostle" here should be "brethren".. or "disciples" or "followers"...?
either way.... ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THE TNIV IS OFF...