Thoughts & Predictions on the 2011 NIV (and a Requiem for the TNIV)
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 12:36AM 
I'll admit... I gave up on the TNIV a while back. Yet, in spite of that, I still used it. A few months ago, I'd begun teaching from the NLT on Sundays. This class I teach on Sunday mornings has on average 40 or so in attendance each week. I believe the NLT is a great translation, but honestly, unless everyone has the NLT with them, it takes more work to use it in an interactive forum. So, in the last two or three weeks, I went back to using the TNIV more. There really is great value in a median translation.
Today's announcement of the 2011 NIV honestly didn't surprise me, but it did sadden me a bit. I feel like the TNIV never really got a fighting chance. I realize some people sincerely opposed some of the changes in the TNIV, but at the same time, some took this to the zealot level and created a disinformation campaign. Charges that it removed masculinity with numbers counting the fewer times that man occurred is one example. Really, let's compare the ESV and the RSV and see, if on that standard, the ESV has created a less masculine Bible (by that standard, it has: man or men in the RSV--4028 hits; only 3354 hits in the ESV).
And I can still remember a friend of mine, whom after hearing my suggestion to buy a TNIV said, "I don't want any Bible that refers to God as mother." An anti-TNIV zealot had told him as much.
Such charges were nonsense. Nevertheless, they kept people from buying the TNIV. A few years back, I wrote about the owner of a Christian bookstore who told me that she couldn't carry the TNIV because a prominent pastor in town told her that if she carried it, he'd tell all of his congregation to boycott her store. Major chains and up to 50% of CBA stores refused to carry the TNIV. Yet, at the same time, they'd carry the NLT, the Message, the NCV and others that also had gender accurate/inclusive language. It was clearly a double standard.
Further, neither the International Bible society (now Biblica) nor Zondervan could make themselves part with the NIV. The NIV has continued to be promoted by both entities to the neglect of the TNIV. And perhaps this is the real reason the TNIV just couldn't take off. There was simply too much money in the NIV. The TNIV was supposed to be more accurate. Yet recent promotions talked about accuracy for particular generations. In spite of the nonsense about the TNIV being aimed to an 18 to 34 year old crowd, Zondervan never did make the kind of logical steps necessary to transition to the TNIV, such as to refit the very popular Student Bible text with the TNIV. Such a move would have made sense by Zondervan's own promotional copy about the TNIV, but it never happened.
I've long maintained that the standard for transitioning to a new translation was set by Tyndale House when they released the New Living Translation in 1996. At the time, the Living Bible was still in the top five selling translations. I've never been told for certain, but I would guess that Tyndale probably took a financial hit at first when they decided to completely stop production on all but one edition of the Living Bible. IBS and Zondervan simply never could bring themselves to take the painful step.
So, will they be able to do it now? Yes, I know the promises were made today that they would. But what happens if the editors of the very successful Archaeological Study Bible decide they don't like the 2011 NIV? Will Zondervan stay true to their word and remove a bestselling Bible from the market? I can tell you right now, that if they aren't willing to make the hard moves, the NIV 2011 won't have any more success than the TNIV did. Zondervan has to stick to its guns, regardless of criticism. And there will be criticism.
When it comes down to it, if you like the TNIV, you can keep using it. No one is going to stop you. There are so many English translations out there, and updates seem to come so quickly these days, is there anything wrong with simply sticking with one, regardless what others use?
Nevertheless, here are my predictions for the time being.
(1) Get your TNIVs while you can as they will become more difficult than ever to find. Yes, I know that it's promised that the TNIV won't be phased out until the 2011 NIV is in print. But come on. I put 2009 and not 2011 on the tombstone above for a reason. For the most part Zondervan's never been that keen on the TNIV. They certainly can't be found in stores. Do you really think that as supplies dwindle, they'll crank up another print run? No way. Who knows--they may even be collectors' items one day. It kind of makes me regret deciding to start writing in the margins of my TNIV Renaissance Leather Reference Edition.
(2) The 2011 NIV will be more gender inclusive than the ESV, but less so than the TNIV. Keep in mind that the ESV is already more gender inclusive than the 1984 NIV--compare Matt 10:41 in both the NIV and ESV, for instance. And the ESV regularly includes inclusive renderings in the footnotes, but avoids them in the text (see Matt 5:47; 23:8; 25:40, etc.). For verses like these, the 2011 NIV will continue to use inclusive readings in the text. So the 2011 NIV will readily render ἀδελφοὶ as brothers and sisters and put in the text what the ESV translators are content to keep in the footnotes. Having said that, however, expect to see more controversial readings such as those found in Psalm 34:20 and 1 Tim 2:5 retreat back to traditional readings.
(3) Say goodbye to the Singular They. This is an easy compromise. I've always grudgingly accepted the singular they because I recognize its purpose and near ubiquitous use in informal communication. Yet, as I read from James 5:13-15 at church this past Sunday, I cringed internally. I imagine this will be an easy fix. Whether or not the CBT will decide to use a lot more second persons or retreat to masculine universals, I cannot say.
(4) Regardless of how much the progress of the TNIV is compromised in the 2011 NIV, it will still be controversial. The CBT is simply not going to satisfy some of the detractors out there. That crowd actually dislikes the NIV, too. The TNIV was simply their excuse to rail and promote "other" translations. Most of these folks will do the same thing to the 2011 NIV. However, if Zondervan can get Lifeway and other CBA stores to carry the 2011 NIV where the TNIV was forbidden, they will have at least made some progress.
(5) As we wait for the 2011 NIV, expect the 1984 NIV to keep on selling. I've already read some speculation that announcing the 2011 NIV so early might keep people from buying the current NIV. There's nothing for Zondervan to worry about here. You and I may be aware of the 2011 NIV, but for the average person in the pew, it will remain off radar--perhaps even after it's finally released. For the average person, the NIV will still be the NIV. Thus, sticking with that name may be the best idea yet.
And as for me, I'll always remember the TNIV with great fondness. It was surely the best translation that nobody ever read.
When the 2011 NIV finally reaches my hands, I'll be glad to evaluate it on its own merits, although it will be difficult not to compare it to the TNIV. Nevertheless, if I decide I do, in fact, like the 2011 NIV, can I finally get a real wide margin edition for the love of Margaret?!
Faith & Reason, NIV, NIV 2011, TNIV
Reader Comments (1)
The messages below have been copied over from the original This Lamp website. Please continue any further discussion here.
John
Hmm, I think the NIV 2011 will keep the singular "they". It's really the only accurate way to communicate in contemporary English. That's why I think there's still going to be quite a controversy over the NIV. If Zondervan markets properly, however, it shouldn't be too bad.
I'm probably going not going to transition until (1) I need a new Bible, or (2) everyone else is using the 2011 edition. I've already got two nice NIV 1984 Bibles!
January 26, 2010, 10:18:38 AM EST – Like – Reply
Darryl Rowe
Anonymous:
I'm in a church that mostly uses the NIV, so the TNIV fits nicely. I have chosen the NET (in spite of its planned 5-year refresh cycles) as my primary because I really really really like their translators notes. If that was not available I'd really be looking at the TNIV Study Bible as primary.
I wish I'd found the $100 "good" TNIV in time...I ordered a backup copy of the European leather TNIV study bible because I'm staying with it until the NIV 2011 has "settled down" and been analyzed well enouogh to see where it stands.
That said...as an egalitarian conservative Southern Baptist my only remaining choice(s) are the NRSV and NLTse. Unintended consequences indeed!
September 14, 2009, 10:41:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Darryl Rowe
Having come out of the Roman church I have some experience making "real time" corrections to what is being preached and taught. Having enjoyed many years with The Navigators I learned (I believe) to properly understand the KJV, but moved along with most of my team-mates to NIV in the early 80s.
If Koine was the "common" language, then _that_ is how the Scripture (in the New Testament at least) should be translated. As literally/formally as possible but as interpretive as necessary where not in order to openly and clearly and unequivocally communicate the living Word. Then show footnotes of alternative(s) and add some discussion of their likelihood like the NET Bible.
That is, I suppose, why I like the NRSV and NET for the Old Testament, and the NET and TNIV for the New Testament. I also use the NASB95 as a main reference along with the KJV. I also sometimes refer to the NLT, Stern's CJB and The Message as outliers. I'm just a hobbyist with the Greek/Hebrew and looking at commentarys, BDB and so on can follow something I'm really interested in, but someday....
I supposed I'd best prefer the NIV 2011 to be a blend of the NRSV, NET and TNIV and watch the anti-TNIV crowd go ballistic...maybe they'd be utterly speechless.
September 14, 2009, 10:31:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
This whole business makes me sick. I use the tniv for preaching and teaching, mainly bc most people have the niv. I guess I am most upset by two things: 1. this has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the tniv, it all about perception and market share. that stinks. 2. it was really good of zondervan to finally put out a $100 'nice' edition of the tniv just before they pulled the whole project. thanks.
I am seriously considering dropping the whole niv/tniv family, and going nrsv full time.
September 14, 2009, 5:05:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Joe Myzia
I like the idea of slapping an NIV cover over the TNIV. I love the TNIV and in particular my renaissance reference TNIV.
Crossway has been brilliant in marketing the ESV. I reluctantly am using it now with my teens on Tuesdays simply because they have so many versions and through Family Christian Stores I was able to get pocket versions of the ESV with a $23 retail price for $5 each. I say "reluctantly" not because I dislike the version but mostly because it doesn't talk the way we do today as well as the TNIV does. Teens would understand a TNIV more easily. Yet having an easy to carry Bible for junior high and high school teens increases the likelihood that they'll have their Bible with when they come to study. I couldn't get anywhere near that price with pocket TNIVs. Thus the teens are more likely to bring their pocket ESV due to convenience and it allowed all of us to read from the same version which I think also helps with teens even if the version isn't as easy to understand.
I find myself in a middle ground in that I'm not adversarial to the 1984 NIV, nor the ESV, nor the TNIV nor any version particularly except those with definite theological agendas such as the NWT. While I do believe that it is fair and necessary to make objective criticisms of where translations/versions are strong and weak, I think the Bible wars in Evangelicalism more often demonstrate problems of arrogance, Corinthian cliquishness, and capitalistic decision making. The proper attitude through all of this should be more like Paul's attitude in Philippians 1 in regard to those who were stirring up trouble. Paul was simply glad they preached Jesus. Likewise, I'm just glad someone is reading a Bible whether it be NIV, ESV, TNIV, NRSV, NLT, NLTse, CEV, The Message or whatever. Thank you, Jesus, that they are reading a Bible.
Along the lines of what you said, Rick, Zondervan needs to bite the bullet and pull the old NIV off the shelf when they make a move. Perhaps keep one edition available just like you can find old NASBs around but usually it's the 95 update. They should have done it with the TNIV and groups like CBMW should have been more objective, fair and balanced. I like many of the writings from the pro-ESV celebrities of the Evangelical world on other subjects they write about. On this issue of translations, their work was very substandard compared to other things they've written.
All that being said, slap a new NIV cover on the NIV and then they can make changes to 2 Chronicles 14:14 and Jeremiah 49:32 by replacing "booty" with "plunder" or "loot" or some other 7th grade friendly word.
September 14, 2009, 12:51:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Robert
I was never all that impressed with NIV, and TNIV was downright unacceptable to me with its gender issues, so it's back to KJV/RSV/ESV for me. "Inclusive language" is a deal-breaker for me, coming from a church that used the horrifying 1990s Inclusive Version translation...eek!
September 9, 2009, 8:52:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Curt, I agree 100%. I, too, didn't always feel that way, but the more I've studied both translation and communication, the more I've become convinced of the same conclusion as you.
September 5, 2009, 2:05:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Curt Parton
I didn't always feel this way, but I've come to be in favor of the more idiomatic reading being in the main body of the text, with alternative, more formal, readings in the footnotes. This makes for better reading and allows the flow of thought to be more clearly evident, but also notifies the reader that there are alternative readings to consider.
September 5, 2009, 1:59:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Lowell
I agree that more footnotes in the NIV 2011 would be helpful, especially of the sort where alternative translations for the same Hebrew/Greek text are offered. However, in the area of gender accurate renderings, the gender accurate reading should remain in the main text with the more traditional translation being relegated to the footnotes. If I am reading a passage aloud, I want to be able to read the gender accurate text without having to jump back and forth to the footnotes to find it. The NIV 2011 needs to remain faithful to the CBT's decision to use gender accurate language as seen in the TNIV.
As for footnotes offering alternative readings where the textual tradition differs, I feel that a few more of these would also be helpful, as I am interested in the history of the various MSS. But to footnote all the differences between the eclectic text used by the NIV 2011 and the Majority Text would be excessive. If I want to study that I will go to the Greek critical editions of the NT.
September 5, 2009, 11:18:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Jon, if you knew the backgrounds of the people on the CBT, you'd know that your assertion about "where [the TNIV] was eventually headed" is ludicrous.
And I doubt seriously they would add footnotes about the Majority Text in the next edition. That's really not on anyone's radar in the Evangelical world except for a very small minority.
September 5, 2009, 9:19:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Peter Kirk
Jon, do you have any evidence in statements by anyone from CBT or Biblica that there was any intention to call God a mother in future editions of TNIV? I consider this highly unlikely as it goes against the deeply held evangelical theology as well as the professional exegetical integrity of at least the majority of the scholars on CBT. If you have no evidence, please withdraw and apologise for this slur on these fine Christian people.
I agree that a few more footnotes would help with acceptance of TNIV and the NIV 2011 update.
September 5, 2009, 9:05:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Jon
While it's true that they did not call God a mother in the TNIV, that was probably where it was eventually going to head in future revisions. That said, the biggest thing the NIV/TNIV had against it was it did not have the kind of detailed footnotes the HCSB, NET and ISV bibles did. Big mistake. These footnotes are essential to any looser translation of this kind, where translator bias and social agendas can more easily creep in. What they should do is re-release the NIV with more up-to-date english, HCSB-type footnotes, and any unnecessary gender stuff relegated to the footnotes, so those who actually get confused about this kind of stuff can read it. While they're at it, they'll win tons of folks over if they include the same textual footnotes that the NKJV has for Majority Text, and non-KJVO crowd who'd easily make the switch from the NKJV and HCSB. Of course that isn't going to happen. That's too bad.
September 5, 2009, 7:02:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Lowell
It figures. Just as soon as I buy TNIV's for my two daughters and my son, Zondervan goes and pulls the plug. The school that my children attend requires that they have an NIV for their Bible classes, but this year I thought that I would buy them TNIV's instead. I've been using the TNIV since it first came out and I wanted my children to benefit from the current scholarship reflected in the TNIV. I also wanted them to appreciate the inclusiveness of the Gospel as reflected in a gender accurate translation. (I had previously bought my daughters NLTse Bibles for use at home). My daughter's Bible teacher had stated that in the Bible "man" really means "all people." I want my daughters (and my son) to realize that the Bible includes them without having to go through the translation process in their own minds. This is all the more true as language continues to change and the terms "man" and "he" are no longer seen as being generic terms.
In my own experience I've been using a gender accurate translation since about 1992 with the NRSV, then adding the TEV 92 ed., the CEV, the NLT 96 ed., the TNIV and the NLTse. My experience using these translations as my main Bibles and my time in seminary has made gender accurate/inclusive language my normal, everday English dialect. I find it slightly disconcerting and off-putting when I hear the Bible being read in a translation that still uses the so-called generic "man" or generic "he". It just does not sit well with me when I hear "brothers", instead of "brothers and sisters". (In my own mind I always add "sisters"). That is why I embraced the TNIV wholeheartedly; close enough to the NIV to follow along with the majority of churchgoers in my circle, yet gender accurate and updated with the latest in scholarship.
Now to hear that Zondervan is going to go ahead with the 2011 NIV and eventually drop the NIV 84 and the TNIV leaves me with mixed feelings. It is good that they are going to put all their weight behind one translation and promote it as it deserves to be. But I am worried that Zondervan might take a step back with the 2011 NIV and remove some of the gender accurate renderings. In my opinion if they do this the translation will loose some of its appeal to me and I will either have to stick with the orphaned TNIV or switch back to the NRSV or the NLTse. I can only hope that the CBT has enough autonomy that they are not pressured to make retrograde changes to the gender accurate language of the TNIV. I feel that the singular "they" is a valid translation option that works well in most instances and would be highly disappointed if they went back to the generic "he". I also feel that in the more controversial passages such as Hebrews 2:6-8 the TNIV was fair to both sides by putting the gender accurate translation in the text and the more traditional rendering in the footnotes. The options were presented to the readers for their consideration.
It is my hope that the 2011 NIV will be an update and revision of the TNIV, retaining its gender accurate language, while increasing its readability and accuracy.
September 5, 2009, 12:08:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Kirk
That's why I stick to my worn out KJV and don't bother with these money hungry folks.
September 4, 2009, 1:30:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Curt Parton
I wonder what I am going to say to the church down the road that has invested over £2000 in TNIV pew editions.
This is an important factor. We tend to consider the impact on pastors/teachers and individual readers, but there are going to be a lot of churches in just the situation that John describes. Hopefully, the 2011 NIV will be so close to the TNIV that it won't be necessary for these churches to replace their pew Bibles. But it still may cause many churches to think twice before investing in a new Zondervan-published translation.
September 4, 2009, 1:22:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
John Duncan
Thanks, Rick, for your prompt response - very much as I feared. It's astonishing to me that bible translators/publishers can come out with this stuff. Evidently the pressures must be very fierce.
Your post has been very helpful to me in getting my mind a bit clearer over this. I run a Christian bookstore in London, U.K. The wars that have raged on the retail front over the TNIV issue in the U.S. simply have not happened here. To the extent that the problem in the States revolves around gender-inclusive issues, by and large people who buy bibles are a good deal more relaxed about them over here. There was some initial suspicion of TNIV, but probably no more than for any other update. Undoubtedly it has not been taken up with as much enthusiasm as the U.K. publisher (Hodder) had hoped for, but sales after a slow start have steadily increased.
The point you raise about Tyndale's willingness to kill off the Living Bible is a telling one. I still get customers coming in every month or two asking for the Living Bible. Most of them are quite happy to get the NLT when we have finished explaining to them!
So my main problem is going to be how to explain to my customers, without engaging in doubletalk, why there is a need for another revision of the NIV after only six years? I wonder what I am going to say to the church down the road that has invested over £2000 in TNIV pew editions.
Thanks again. I'll be keeping an eye on your blog.
September 4, 2009, 11:11:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Jordan
I think this is a great way to make money. Not necessarily a good idea. Hopefully they fix all the words that NET bible accuses them of being outdated. Like everyone says, the TNIV was marketed poorly. I particularily couldn't stand that I couldn't get a normal font/format of the TNIV. Anyways, a new edition of the NRSV would be nice. It would be nice if the NRSV got rid of "catholic" words, like chaste. Maybe that's my personal opinion. I hope the new NIV is good though. I will cry if the NIV has italics though. This is distracting in my opinion. That's why I like the NRSV. It is pretty literal (a bit less than NASB), but very readable.
NET bible review?
September 4, 2009, 10:43:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
John, it's clearly double talk. During the webcast announcement, I submitted a question that Doug Moo responded to (it's the second question answered) asking how the TNIV relates to the NIV 2011 since I thought the TNIV was the revision to the NIV (Moo even read that part of my question, although he didn't really answer that aspect of it).
Regardless, it's double talk at best and revisionist history at worst.
September 4, 2009, 9:24:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply
John Duncan
Every version of TNIV in my bookstore says in the preamble 'Today's New International Version(TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version (NIV)'.
The NIV 2011 official website says: 'The global board of Biblica today announced its intention to update the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the first time it has been revised since 1984.' So can somebody explain to me how this is a true statement?
September 4, 2009, 9:13:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Darryl Rowe
Curt:
I had to get the PocketBible for Windows so I could get a parallel window showing NAS95 - TNIV - NIV - NLTse - NLT. Given my time and memory work with NIV, TNIV just feels better and I'm still enough of a 'literalist' to want to stay with a 'mediating' translation or 'Type 2' open resemblant one. I've been focusing on TNIV but will spend a bit more time comparing with NLTse now...just in case.
I tried (in 2003) to go with ESV but it never 'took' and I found myself using the NASB95 instead. HCSB...might be good...but in spite of my 14+ years in the SBC which I left basically over gender issues since I believe women have as much right to preach/teach as any man...while the students have the duty to search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so and become workmen rightly dividng the word of truth. So IMO, HCSB is tainted.
So...I'll keep using my TNIV and the other versions I mentioned unless something better comes along...or I become fluent (finally) in the biblical languages.
September 4, 2009, 3:00:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
TC ROBINSON
Despite hiccups, I'll still use the TNIV as my primay texts because of the merits of the translation itself. I may not even like the 2011 NIV.
September 4, 2009, 1:25:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Kevin Sam
The only way I will read an NIV bible again is if they (like Darryl said) "slap an NIV cover on the TNIV text and go with it, utterly removing the 1984 NIV". I feel like I've been burned as a TNIV supporter for a few years now. My disappointment with Zondervan, Biblica and CBT may fade away but I'm just tired of Z's pathetic, and cowardlike marketing. I've expressed that I feel they really didn't fully support and stand behind the TNIV. But that's just me though.
September 4, 2009, 12:36:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Ken Steele
Love my TNIV and preach from it weekly. Most of our church uses NIV anyway, so this works well. Sad to see it go, but they deserved it for how horribly they marketed it. the ESV does such a great job with their marketing of different products an innovations like the beautiful ESV Study Bible.
The problem is, I won't buy an ESV because I just don't like the way it reads. Worse still is how some people exalt the ESV as the "best ever" and have become an "ESV only" cult.
Did Zondervan learn nothing from Holman and the HCSB? I love that translation too, but i got caught up in the controversy over it as a "Hard Core Southern Baptist" Bible.
Market your product well, and people will buy it. It's not like people sit down and pray over what translation to buy.
We'll see what comes down the road in a couple years. For now it's still the TNIV, NIV, or HCSB for me.
September 3, 2009, 2:49:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Curt Parton
Darryl, FWIW, I liked my wife's NLT but I was pretty skeptical about trying to teach expositionally from it. Until I compared the NLTse chapter-by-chapter with my TNIV. I was blown away by the clarity and accuracy of the NLT. I still love the TNIV, but I've become an enthusiastic supporter of the NLTse. It is more idiomatic than the NIV/TNIV, but that's usually a strength, conveying even more clearly the actual meaning of the text.
September 3, 2009, 1:24:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Darryl Rowe
I just discovered the TNIV and loved it. Right now I only consider two "Type 2" translations: NET and TNIV. I use "Type 1" NASB, NRSV (new to this one) and KJV for reference and in my Wordsearch parallel bibles.
I read the NLT (Type 4, in my opinion) aloud to my mom at least three times during her illness. But I've always bought into that NIV/Type 2 issue as being as far as we can safely go. I put NLTse into Type 3. We shall see.
So: 1960 - 1973 Douay-Rheims; 1973 - 1985 KJV; 1985 - 2003 NIV; 2003 - 2009 NASB (ESV don't hunt); and 2009 - whenever NET (TNIV was taken and the NIV left).
I hope they simply slap an NIV cover on the TNIV text and go with it, utterly removing the 1984 NIV. You may be more correct, though. We shall see. Thanks for a great site.
September 3, 2009, 12:31:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Curt Parton
Rick, I think you're right about your predicted changes. I can see wisdom in slightly altering the nuance of passages that were the most targeted by opponents. I have no problem with the singular they, but removing them could also serve to disarm critics who continually harped on it. These could be shrewd ways of silencing the most vociferous attacks. But opposition is sure to continue, and Zondervan needs to decide now that they're in it for the long haul. And be willing to change over every edition to the 2011 NIV. Keeping the NIV name will help them do this more quietly, without all the fanfare of a new brand.
If they had done this a couple of years ago, it would have been fairly easy for our church to transition from officially using the TNIV (with a lot of folks still using the 1984 NIV) to using the 2011 NIV. But the lack of TNIV support caused me to be much more open to evaluating the updated NLT. Now we've switched, and our people love the NLT, and I love teaching from it. I'll definitely check out the 2011 NIV for my own use, but I don't see any way we as a church will revert to a less idiomatic translation. I would guess this will be true of other churches and organizations, such as Christianity Today, that have changed from the NIV.
September 3, 2009, 11:31:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Oh, well, the issue has nothing to do with Apple, but rather my blogging software, Rapidweaver, which I've outgrown.
I agree about the acceptability of the singular they, but I still predict it will be removed. It's an easy concession to make and one less issue to criticize the 2011 NIV over. The 2011 NIV will most assuredly look, overall, more like the TNIV than the NIV because the TNIV was about much more than gender renderings as we all know.
September 3, 2009, 6:39:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Peter Kirk
Ah, Apple, what do you expect? Those Macs are always crashing! You really need to move to Windows as well as WordPress.
While you're at it, move to WordPress comments as well, which work much more nicely than these Haloscan ones.
As for the translation, I accept that there could be a few concessions. Elsewhere I suggested "take authority" to replace "assume authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12, as being a little more neutral (and weaker than KJV). But I still expect the update to be much more like TNIV than NIV 1984 - as Moo himself said. As for singular "they", I doubt if they will backtrack on it as this is rapidly becoming more acceptable in the common language that the CBT aims to use.
September 3, 2009, 5:01:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Michael, part of my site seems to still be down. I'm doing a full upload. I don't know whether it's Apple or my software (RapidWeaver). But I do know I need to make a move to something like WordPress eventually.
And I agree about the NET Bible. Folks should really take the opportunity to check out the NET Bible while waiting for the NIV 2011.
September 2, 2009, 8:31:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Michael Metts
Rick, I'm linking to your site for my TNIV coverage, since you are the jedi-master on Bible translations. I noticed you were down earlier, are you getting a lot of traffic?
Everyone needs the NET Bible. Forget about silly NIVs and TNIVs!
September 2, 2009, 8:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Peter, I'm not certain I understand your point. I realize the CBT is an independent body. I'm just making predictions as to what the final product will look like based on the current "climate" in Evangelical life. I may be wrong. I really do believe there will be a few concessions though.
And yes, I realize my site is down. I think it's something to do with Apple, but I'm attempting a full reload of the whole site right now which will take a few hours.
September 2, 2009, 6:10:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Peter Kirk
Rick, I think your predictions ignore the way that this whole NIV translation and publication process works. The CBT is an independent entity with no incentive to make the changes you predict. For more on this see my post.
By the way, the direct link to this post, http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20090901_thoughts_predictions_2011NIV.html, is broken. http://thislamp.com leads to the same error page.
September 2, 2009, 5:48:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Gen
In regards to a wide-margin edition of the new NIV, I'd love to see an actual study edition available once, for almost any Bible. What I mean is: plain old binding, any one that would work, single column, black letter with either wide margins or interleaved, or with notepaper in the back. There could also be scholarly articles or commentary or something, but those aside, it'd be nice to own a Bible that the publisher made useful, not fancy-looking or 'holy'. Because half the time, that's what it is. They use leather binding, incredibly thin paper and gold stamping rather than focusing on the features that really matter to someone who wants to look at the text.
September 2, 2009, 3:17:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
While I would agree that there is more "heat" than "light" surrounding Biblical translation and versions, this matter does illustrate the business of translation and reader loyalty.
Moreover, it represents an important question - how "far" from the original manuscripts (or manuscript families) is it proper to go in order to convey accurate meaning? How far is it proper to go to convey it in our modern language?
Both sides have made valid points. While I came from a so-called word-for-word translation background (KJV, NASB, NKJV), I do enjoy the NIV when reading whole books, but favour to follow this with careful attention to each passage using a more formal translation.
As valid as conveying accurate meaning is by some, there has crept in a notion that suggests there should be no (or at least little) work involved on the part of the reader. Instead, such work is the domain of the translator. This is not to suggest the work by the educated translator is dishonest in anyway, but like the reader we must concede that we all are bias interpreters to some degree, regardless of our training and experience.
Translation committees are the best approach, but we must understand that consensus is reached through compromise. In an attempt to resolve ambiguity, words have been lost; words that by themselves seemed insignificant at the time for the given verse or even passage, but have later proved to be invaluable when comparing Scripture with Scripture. And while I appreciate the resolution of idioms in certain translations, I also enjoy their presentation in formal ones as a tool in comparing Scripture.
In the end, I am agreeable to using multiple versions, and do so myself enjoying the benefits of such an approach to God’s Word, yet there are Christians like myself who, despite the marketing and conviction by experts, cannot agree that all translations (methods) have the same value when presenting the Word in English.
Of course this perception is immediately challenged by translators, linguists, and academics associated in these different fields of translation, but I do believe we are kidding ourselves when it is argued that each translation method produces the same product in terms of value. I am purposely leaving the term “value” vague. The reality is that it does mean something a little different to each one of us. And that may be my whole point really. There has always seemed a lack of understanding by translators with respect to Christian readers and their fellow workers involved in other translations. Moreover, there is an unwillingness to consider the possibility that certain translations may have more value. Instead, each “camp” promotes their product to the exclusion of all others. It does open the issue to ridicule when particular passages are examined, especially by the non-Christian world.
When we discuss gender language in particular, while I am open to examining the matter, so much can be lost if we abandon the "theology" behind masculine/feminine terminology. At the same time, it would certainly bother me if, say, a little girl reading a passage concerning salvation excluded herself because it seem to her to only be addressed to males. Yet, Scripture reveals amazing promises, like believers becoming "sons" not “daughters” because we all shall be like Him (some measure of the moral beauty of the Lord Jesus Christ). These theological devices are important and necessary in the Word of God. God has obviously used them too, of course, as He presents a Father and Son construct to us. Otherwise, I can't imagine how we could understand God in any other way. Yet it presents problems since we try to impose time, and therefore struggle with terms like beget. Anyway, I would hope the "daughters" of God cherish becoming a "son," and would have no difficulty if translations including a clarification note to assist the read about its wonderful non-gender promise to all born again believers.
Kindest Regards
September 2, 2009, 1:52:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Link McGinnis
Rick - when they do create a wide margin it will be handicapped by having the thinnest paper possible.
I'm not so sure about the Bible experience. Sales have really dropped off (at least in our stores). I'm sure some of that is just natural product lifecycle but it seems that Christmas is the only time we can sell them - and we put them on sale during Christmas.
It's the NIV Study Bible that I would worry about. For the folks who buy that Bible to accept the text in a different translation, the Z marketing team better be on its toes.
September 2, 2009, 1:33:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Tim Chesterton
I trust the CBT, but I don't trust Zondervan or Biblica.
September 2, 2009, 11:13:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Clay Knick
I remain hopeful. I trust the folks who are on the CBT.
September 2, 2009, 10:31:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Jerry B
If Zondervan backs off the inclusive language in the 2011 update, I won't be using it.
September 2, 2009, 9:58:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply
R. Mansfield
Larry, another legacy item I believe we'll continue to see is the Bible Experience. It has been the only TNIV product that's been of any significant success to my knowledge. As large as that project was, I cannot imagine that it would be redone just because a new NIV is released. No way. And my guess is that Zondervan will continue to sell it indefinitely as long as people are buying it. In the long run, it will be the TNIV's only lasting legacy.
Dan, I don't believe the announcement of the NIV 2011 means you have to stop using your TNIV now or even after 2011. Bibles aren't like tax codes that require us to adjust every time a new set comes out. I'm under the assumption that neither you, nor I, nor most of the folks reading this will continue to use the TNIV long term now that it's essentially been abandoned. Nevertheless, if anyone want to use it indefinitely, there's no reason not to. I've been teaching from it again the last three weeks at church, and I imagine I'll continue to do so for the time being.
When the 2009 HCSB is released, I imagine I'll give it a go, too.
As I've stated before, I'd really enjoy finding a translation I could use for the long haul. Maybe that will be the 2011 NIV, or maybe it won't be. I don't know.
September 2, 2009, 9:17:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Chuck C
I guess this means my "dream Bible" (TNIV/NRSV parallel edition) will never see the light of day.
But seriously, in trying to look at the bright side of this, if there is one, I wonder if maybe what we'll get is something resembling what a periodic revision of the TNIV would have looked liked anyway. I'm assuming some concessions will be made to die-hards and TNIV detractors but maybe this new version will actually be more like the TNIV than the old NIV (which is a slightly odd statement considering that the two version are almost the same anyway). I suppose this could be a victory by stealth.
I actually would prefer that they keep the singular they rather than revert to he or change to you. I used to pretty much fall into the inclusive he camp but now it sounds off, if not downright wrong, to me. They is everywhere. (Please no one try to tell me that that doesn't make it right. We're talking about language conventions, not morals.) People understand it and let it wash right over them whether they think its use is correct or not. Switching to you, as the NRSV does, seems like much more of a change. That's just my feeling about it.
What do you think are the chances that Biblica would license the TNIV to other publishers?
September 2, 2009, 9:12:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Ted
My main problem with the TNIV was the way it was printed. I never could find an edition that wasn't printed in that irritating (for me) sans-serif font.
September 2, 2009, 8:53:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Dan
So...any suggestions as to what to use in the meantime? Stay with TNIV?
September 2, 2009, 8:10:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Gen
I haven't visited thislamp in some time, but the minute I heard about this, I came straight to your blog. I am incredibly saddened to see this translation pushed off the market, based partially, at least, on the lies told by supposedly Christian people.
Granted, Zondervan did a terrible job of marketing it. I'm in their demographic (18) but the most I could ever find was one or two copies on the shelf, and never anything other than a basic edition.
I actually ordered a wide margin online (the TNIV-squared) and I'm thinking of getting a few more copies, just in case it disappears quickly. It was wonderful to read this Bible without feeling like I was being 'negged' by people who insist I need to tack myself onto a male pronoun.
Meanwhile, I've actually read and really liked the NLT, so I suppose that will have to become my translation of choice now, but I'm so sad about this.
September 2, 2009, 7:30:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Stan McCullars
That was a very nice eulogy. Hopefully the NIV 2011 will be a great successor to the (T)NIV.
September 2, 2009, 6:24:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Todd Benkert
Rick,
Thanks for the great article. I grew up on NIV and can't wait to switch to NIV 2011. Hopefully, the new translation can win the hearts of many TNIV detractors. In any case, if Zondervan will stick to their guns, I'll stick with them.
Blessings,
Todd
September 2, 2009, 6:22:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Larry
What about all those long-term licensees of the NIV -- other publishers who put out different editions? The NIV will be around for a long, long, long time (especially, if IBS/Biblica attempts to jack up the royalty rate on the NIV-un-un -- and I suspect they will).
Because the vast majority of people don't even pay attention to the edition they have (most normal people don't think a new edition is a reason to throw out their old cookbooks, dictionaries, and Bibles -- especially when it has the same name) and publishers already have nice licensing agreements for the NIV, I suspect the current NIV will be with us for at least another decade -- perhaps longer.
September 2, 2009, 3:00:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply