Why the Updated NIV Bible 2011?

I too have made the switch to the updated NIV Bible 2011 for some of the same reasons as you’ll discover in the following video:

It has passed the test of being:

  • Accurate
  • Clear
  • Natural,
  • and Audience-Appropriate

But to each their own…

This entry was posted in NIV Bible 2011, Updated NIV and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Why the Updated NIV Bible 2011?

  1. Dan says:

    Outstanding teaching. So clear. Even when he seriously disagrees with the NIV, he says that’s something they can debate. Great stuff.

  2. Simon says:

    One of the other considerations is whether the translation is too tradition or denomination orientated. The NIV is almost exclusively translated for evangelicals. The ESV is even narrower.

    I like to stick with the RSV as my preferred, then the NRSV. These translations are much broader than the evangelical world.

    He has a good point about those who don’t have English as their first language. In PNG, where I live, some of the churches read Scripture from the Good News translation, which is much easier for the locals to understand.

    • TC says:

      Dan: Yes, he appears to be aware of the complexities and nuances of Bible translations, to a degree.

      Simon: I don’t think there is any secret to the evangelical bent of the NIV. I believe it has always been perceived that way, since its inception.

      I do like the NRSV. 😉

  3. I’ve found the new NIV sounds “natural” too me without driving me nuts by being too “dynamic” (usually!)

    • TC says:

      Chuck, it’s a great middle-of-the-road alternative. I recommend it. 😉

      • Jon Hughes says:

        Who wants to be “middle-of-the-road” though?

        I agree that the NIV is a neatly-packaged, ‘safe’ translation, and can understand why churches and new believers would use it. (I used it with much profit for the first seven years of my Christian life.) But isn’t it somewhat ‘sanitized’ for seasoned saints? Doesn’t it rather ‘tame’ the Word of God?

        The KJV will never be beaten for its majesty and grandeur. It has contributed to the English language in a way that the NIV never will. Other translations, such as the New English Bible, are far more interesting and quirky – doesn’t the NIV seem somewhat ‘reductionist’ by comparison?

        The NRSV is far superior to the NIV in my view. As Simon mentioned, the NIV has an evangelical bias, something that should surely be avoided in translating the Word of God.
        In the NRSV, I can read about “sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21); Azazel (Leviticus 16:8); “the number of the gods” (Deuteronomy 32:8); “the divine council” (Psalm 82:1); “goat-demons” (Isaiah 13:21, 34:14); and “Lilith” (Isaiah 34:14).

        The NIV ‘protects’ me from all this.

  4. TC says:

    Jon, as an “evangelical” Bible, I too suspect it would be somewhat “sanitized.” But there are no perfect translations out there. You know this.

    Enough cannot be said about the KJV’s lasting impact.

    Yes, the NRSV remains a solid translation, though it needs a bit of language updating.

  5. I still have some issues with the NIV 2011 but do find it better than the 1984 edition. I will stick with my ESV though. 🙂

  6. TC says:

    I don’t know too much about the NKJV, but yes, the ESV reads better than the NASB overall. I consider the ESV a better translation than both of them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s