Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Entertainment|Tue, Sep. 01 2009 03:10 PM EDT

Scholars to Revise Popular NIV Bible

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

The popular New International Version (NIV) of the Bible will be revised for the first time in 25 years, global ministry Biblica announced on Tuesday.

The updated version is slated for release in 2011.

"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand,” said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica.

First published in 1978 and revised in 1984, the NIV Bible was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English.

Although the NIV has become the most popular of all modern translations, it is becoming increasingly dated as time passes, Danby noted.

"If we want a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to, and respect, the vocabulary they are using today," he said.

An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after conservatives denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would rid the Scriptures of male pronouns.

Five years later, Biblica, then known as International Bible Society, released an updated English translation called Today's New International Version (TNIV) which was also met with criticism because of the use of gender neutral language.

Maureen Girkins, president and chief executive officer for Zondervan, which publishes the NIV and TNIV Bibles, acknowledged that the TNIV is divisive and said it will be taken off the market when the new revision is released, according to USA Today.

Those on the revising team cannot predict what will happen with gender usage when they begin their work on the new NIV. But along with re-examination on gender-related decisions, the team will be seeking feedback from the general public (nivbible2011.com).

Revisions will be made by members of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), an independent body of global biblical scholars that has the sole authority to update the text of the NIV.

"The new 2011 NIV is all about maintaining and enhancing the original values of the NIV for today’s readers," said CBT Chairman Professor Douglas Moo.

"We’re looking for a translation that is above all accurate – that says what the original authors said in the way they would have said it had they been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today. We're looking for a translation that offers clarity – where understanding comes naturally and readers can quickly grasp the original authors’ ideas and the cadence of their language. We’re looking for a translation that is suitable both for in-depth study and for outreach – a translation that Christians can share with their neighbors without hindrance whether they are experienced Bible readers or interested newcomers."

The CBT is scheduled to finish its revision late next year. The updated NIV will be published in 2011, the year which marks the 400th anniversary of the King James Version.

"Our goal in the NIV Bible translation mirrors that of the 17th Century translators themselves: to produce a Bible that removes all unnecessary obstacles to comprehension by drawing on the best available scholarship," said Moo.

More than 300 million copies of the NIV have been sold to people worldwide. Once the CBT completes its translation, Christian publisher Zondervan will produce print and digital versions of the updated NIV.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Blacksho89,

    Hope all is well with you today! The word used in Rom 12 for either "spiritual" or "reasonable" is "logikos" can be translated both ways (either just reasonable or reasonable because of the spiritual nature of the act). One could also translate it "spiritually reasonable act" and be quite accurate. Personally I don't care which is used but just wanted to point that out because it may have been a decision to make sure the reader understood it was a spiritual decision more than straight logic. Don't really know just throwing out a guess...

    As for using multiple translations, very good advice. A scholar never uses less than three with one being the original language translation.

    Grace and Peace,
    jim

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:29 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Blacksho89 ,

    Yes; the largest number of copies is compelling evidence in favor of the majority text; again, there was a reason why the majority text was preferred over the minority text. I personally stay away from the NIV; there are numerous alterations and omissions within that translation. You may want to print that comparable printable Bible comparison tract that I posted earlier and see for yourself.

  • Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:29 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    O4H: I should not have said "oldest and best". You are correct in your statement that oldest does not necessarily equal best. Then again, the largest number of copies, while compelling evidence, is not proof positive of a better manuscript. After all, the best selling English translation now is the NIV.

    There are parts of the NIV where I scratch my head and wonder what the translators were thinking. Romans 12:1 is an example. Why did the translators use "spiritual" act of worship when "reasonable" seems to fit so much better? That is why I study with AT LEAST 3 translations available.

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:22 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    Zondervan is just acknowledging what a disaster the horrible TNIV was. Even the TNIV translating team now admits it was a big mistake.

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:17 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    kjv

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    nasb

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    the bible is the bible and their is all kinds of translations, It is God's word and I suggest that the people who are going to revise this, The bible God's word better watch out, the creator, And Judge is watching, so get it right, or He will get you.
    either now, or when you are before him when you die.

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:13 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    It is true that there are earlier texts than what the KJV was based on but it is quite another thing to say because one is older than the other; it is better. Most new translations rely heavily on a handful of early Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) that were discovered in the late nineteenth/twentieth century. If these older manuscripts were better than the rest, why weren’t they copied in vast numbers as were the Byzantine manuscripts? There is a reason why the majority of Christendom held to the Majority Text (which make up 90% of the available manuscripts) and rejected the Alexandrian or Critical Text which only makes up 10% or less of the available manuscripts . . .

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    pigrimumm: "The King james Bible has been rated as a fourth grade reading level so it is easily accessible to the general reader"
    Where did you get that? Most sources put the KJV at 11th-12th grade level.
    http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=652502&sp=1003

    Don't get me wrong - I like the KJV. But discoveries of earlier scrolls since 1611 have shown that the texts it was based on are not the earliest, best manuscripts available. Most obvious is the late-written end of the Book of Mark (Chapter 16:9-20). A thoughtful scholar will study several translations.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

    For anyone who is KJV Only (or TR Only) and thinks all other translations are evil and base all English translations and versions against the KJV instead of comparing it to the oldest and best Greek documents; this is a good site:

    http://www.kjv-only.com/

    I especially recommend the article on Isaiah 14.12 as proof that none of the translations or version we have today are the exact words of God because every single one of the copies have had errors and needed fixing. we have wonderfully faithful transmissions but not inerrant translations.

    Just things to think about and ponder. Have a great night all!

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    ESV.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    The only versions that can be trusted are the King James version ,Geneva 1599( just been reprinted with modern spelling and original footnotes) or other editions of it and all those based on the Textus Receptus. The Westcott and Hort texts which all modern versions are based on are spurious and not to be trusted. An examination of Westcott and Horts personal beliefs reveal did not hold to orthodox Christian doctrine. They didn't believe in the resurrection or that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation.Besides that the modern versions are owned by the same company that produce the Satanic bible. Any serious student of the bible should know how to use a concordance for further clarification if needed in some of the more obscure words ,phrases ect. The King james Bible has been rated as a fourth grade reading level so it is easily accessible to the general reader. I find there is a different SPIRIT in the other modern versions much like the catholic Good News version ect. The Spirit of God does not seem to be there. Any readers with similar experiences?

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:20 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 5

    We prefer the editions that try to be true to the Author's Words, rather than the ones that try to please the women who hate it when God uses "man" to refer to men and women.

    We have the 1995 NASB Reference Edition and it is excellent. But then when we saw the New ESV Study Bible, we just had to get it.

    We just received it about a month ago and we'd like to highly recommend it to you, our new friends here at CP.

    Link - http://www.esvstudybible.org/#formats

    Highlights:

    2752 pages, 20000 notes, 200 new full-color maps, 40 new illustrations, 200 charts, over 50 articles on essential topics, 80000 cross-references, a concordance, and a free online Study Bible.

    We were amazed at what at an exceptional value this edition was for the price of nearly $30.

    This New ESV Study Bible is very easy to read, while protecting God's Word from political and special interest corruption.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most loving thing you can do for your family is to regularly read the Bible together.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:19 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Copy of letter submitted to their committee:

    You either believe that the Bible is the very word of God, or you believe that the Bible simply contains the word of God.

    God chose to use the word "man" in many places when He was referring to mankind, both men and women. In many places, God chose to use the word "people", to refer to people, both men and women.

    When God chose to use "man" instead of "people" in certain places, He made that decision for His reasons. He could have used the word "people" or other words, but He chose to use the word "man" in certain places. It's His book.

    As many of us know, during the 1970's and 1980's, the Radical Feminist/Homosexual Alliance attacked the Bible and Christianity for numerous reasons, one being that the Bible's use of the word "man" to refer to both men and women was "insulting" to women. This claim was not only a lie (the use of "man" is not demeaning to normal women), but also an attack on God.

    The RFHA's intention was never to get Bible Societies to change God's Word, so that they would be happy serving God. Their only intention was to get women to quit being followers of the God who tells us to call Him our Father.

    Many gullible women in the 1970's and 1980's bought into these attacks on God's Bible and Christianity lost women because of this specific attack. Some joined Churches that referred to God as Mother God. Many stopped shopping and became atheists.

    If you overrule God, you will not only be joining the RFHA in their decades-long attack on God's use of the words He chooses, you will also be tampering with the very Word of God.

    This time you might want to give it a second thought, because last time you tried to tamper with His words, the Christian response was overwhelmingly negative from all "man", men and women alike.

    TGF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You either believe the Bible is the very Word of God or the Bible simply contains the Word of God.

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    ESV

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Wilderness1,

    You are correct . . .

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Wilderness, according to wikipedia, Zondervan was bought by HarperRowCollins in 1988.

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 0

    Correct me if you think that I am wrong, Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins. What books can be bought from HarperCollins?

    Satanic Bible
    Satanic Rituals
    Encyclopedia of 5,000 Spells
    And so on...

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa
    If you like the old language I suggest reading the King James.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:44 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Blacksho89 said,

    "Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable"

    None of the flagged messages on this topic fit those descriptions. Knock it off, please."

    Anyways, some of those adjectives in that hysterical post you quoted are not appropriate reasons to flag a post on a Christian website.

    You quoted someone, but they have deleted their post. Who was it you were quoting?

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flagged as inappropriate means inappropriate for a Christian website, not inappropriate for any website and not disagreeable to you.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:23 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Here is a printable Bible comparison tract to consider . . .

    http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/Tracts/InAwe_tract.pdf

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:18 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Come on people, this flagging business is very immature and a waste of time since these posts can still be read . . .

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:58 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Yeah, they flag you but give me a thumbs down no matter what I say. You could post John 3:16 and get a flag!

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    I'm not going to comment on the quality of NIV, having never read it, but I find most Bibles that remove the beautiful language of the ancient writers to contemporize the reading do an injustice to the reader. I love the old language and think the Bible loses something when it is put in the popular vernacular and I include the Catholic Bible as well. Gimme that old time religion!

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show blacksho, I just checked another site and I was wrong the mad flagger is still out there!! hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show blacksho, I think the mad flagger has been caught and completely wiped off of CP, but I could be wrong! hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:11 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

    "Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable"

    None of the flagged messages on this topic fit those descriptions. Knock it off, please.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    cc: "NIV has alway's been a corrupt translation omitting many parts of the word of GOD, even whole verses- check it out yourself if you don't beleive me."

    I read the NIV in the classes I teach; I study from the NASB and the KJV to prepare for those classes. There is nothing "missing" from the NIV.

    I'm just not fond of the TNIV; I don't use it at all. Personal preference; I have found no apostasy in it.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:09 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 7

    Let us remember that there are NO original manuscripts that we know of and the originals are what were inspired, not any copies, translations, versions or paraphrases. Every translation and version has had issues that require one to be honest and say they are all flawed to one degree or another. The best we can say is that we have extremely reliable and faithful translated copies of His word. No text is inerrant except the originals of which we do not have any available to us for inspection.

    As to a specific passage that should be rendered differently when it comes to gender is Gen 1.26:

    "Let us make man..and let them have dominion"

    Although the word used is "adam" it certainly isn't specific to one person (male or female) because the KJV later says, "let them (plural)." The passage must be referring to mankind as in the race of Adam. So this passage should make use of "mankind" or "humans" if we are to be able to allow a modern reader to not be confused. This doesn't make the KJV evil or any other translation or version evil, bad or insufficient. What it means is that language changes and His word should be put in the understandable words of the people of that language group (as all the reformers would agree).

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    Flagged as inappropriate. show chicago, in reality we can't read the very Word of God since at this point in time we don't have the original manuscripts. But as for the KJV I would encourage our KJV only folks to realize that the original 1611 had the apocryphal books and was written in a way that makes it very difficult for many today to read it and the copy of the KJV that most KJV only folks use is truly the New King James Version with regards to the original 1611 version. But what is interesting is that every time a portion of manuscript is found and placed alongside the KJV there is little difference to the point they are almost word for word alike and the differences they do find have no impact on the historical accuracy and more importantly the theological or doctrinal accuracy of the KJV and the found manuscript. So while I appreciate the KJV I think we make a mistake to claim KJV only and in fact as some have shared there are several excellent translations but like the KJV they are by no means perfect translations either and like the KJV these errors have no impact on the historical, theological, and doctrinal accuracy of these translations. hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Give me KJV or NKJV or any translation based on the Textus Receptus. The others all have some pretty serious problems.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    Why is it that whenever someone points out that the NIV "removed" words from the Bible they neglect to point out how translation works? But of course they don't know how translation works... nor can they correctly interpret Scripture (i.e. Rev. 22:18-19) either.

    The KJV isn't a literal translation either as it sure isn't the source. One could argue that the KJV is the "new"" and "corrupted" version if you consider Tyndales, Matthews, the Vulgate, or better yet, the LXX (though that wouldn't have the NT).

    Get over yourselves, Yeshua didn't speak Shakespearean English; though, I do agree that some modern day translations destroy the Scripture by mistranslating the text - KJV included in some cases.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    Gibbons: The only way you're going to read the "very word of God" is to spend a few years learning Hebrew and Greek and read it in those original languages. Even the King James version contains enough changes by man to make your head spin.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:15 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Only the gender(m. or f.)-excluding misapply The Word of G-D, but that is not the last word:G-D, through The Holy Spirit, is His Own Interpreter, and "He will make it plain", be it Galatians 3:26-28, or another text.
    Gender issues should not be THE reason, or even a reason, for a new translation: that is the OFfice of the responsible Preacher. In an increasingly non-linear culture,a 'new' translation appears to be more a matter of a doctrinal 'dumbing down' of the faith.

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:45 am Agree: 13   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Something further to think about, transplanted from Jesus-is-savior.com The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words! Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE! Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE! Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE! The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others! Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"! That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible! In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses! hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:42 am Agree: 13   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Anyone reading this article might want to do a google search on "what's wrong with the NIV bible ?" the NIV has alway's been a corrupt translation omitting many parts of the word of GOD, even whole verses- check it out yourself if you don't beleive me.The search for the truth has to start with the truth not some recent unneeded modern corrupt version.I say this in love to all not to be deceived into accepting these modern versions. hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:23 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    Flagged as inappropriate. show We prefer the editions that try to be true to the Author's Words, rather than the ones that try to please the women who hate it when God uses "man" to refer to men and women. We have the 1995 NASB Reference Edition and it is excellent. But then when we saw the New ESV Study Bible, we just had to get it. We just received it about a month ago and we'd like to highly recommend it to you, our new friends here at CP. Link - http://www.esvstudybible.org/#formats Highlights: 2752 pages, 20000 notes, 200 new full-color maps, 40 new illustrations, 200 charts, over 50 articles on essential topics, 80000 cross-references, a concordance, and a free online Study Bible. We were amazed at what at an exceptional value this edition was for the price of nearly $30. This New ESV Study Bible is very easy to read, while protecting God's Word from political and special interest corruption. TGF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most loving thing you can do for your family is to regularly read the Bible together. hide

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 14

    Great news! The TNIV is great and most of the folks out to get this fine translation have never read it! Not new from right wing world but if they had actually stopped sending preprogramed emails written by someone else for just a minute, they would have seen that the TNIV uses the exact same translation philosophy as the NLT!

    Language usage has changed in the last 25 years (the last time the NIV was updated) it is time and I for one eagerly await the revision. Oh, you might want to stock up on NIV's published in 1984 since they won't be published anymore once the revision comes out. Something not done for the TNIV

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:28 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Copy of letter submitted to their committee: You either believe that the Bible is the very word of God, or you believe that the Bible simply contains the word of God. God chose to use the word "man" in many places when He was referring to mankind, both men and women. In many places, God chose to use the word "people", to refer to people, both men and women. When God chose to use "man" instead of "people" in certain places, He made that decision for His reasons. He could have used the word "people" or other words, but He chose to use the word "man" in certain places. It's His book. As many of us know, during the 1970's and 1980's, the Radical Feminist/Homosexual Alliance attacked the Bible and Christianity for numerous reasons, one being that the Bible's use of the word "man" to refer to both men and women was "insulting" to women. This claim was not only a lie (the use of "man" is not demeaning to normal women), but also an attack on God. The RFHA's intention was never to get Bible Societies to change God's Word, so that they would be happy serving God. Their only intention was to get women to quit being followers of the God who tells us to Him our Father. Many gullible women in the 1970's and 1980's bought into these attacks on God's Bible and Christianity lost women because of this specific attack. Some joined Churches that referred to God as Mother God. Many stopped shopping and became atheists. If you overrule God, you will not only be joining the RFHA in their decades-long attack on God's use of the words He chooses, you will also be tampering with the very Word of God. This time you might want to give it a second thought, because last time you tried to tamper with His words, the Christian response was overwhelmingly negative from all "man", men and women alike. TGF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You either believe the Bible is the very Word of God or the Bible simply contains the Word of God. hide

  • Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:54 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 0

    Yes, I remember their attempt to "revise" the Word of God in the late 90's as well. "Mother/Father" God, "he/she"
    nonsense! I am not a big fan of the NIV in the first place, prefering the NASB or KJV, but that was pure defliment of the Holy Bible. I also don't care for the Living Bible, the Message, or any other commentary type Bible on their own.

  • Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:43 pm Agree: 15   Disagree: 1

    something about seeing the words scholar, revise and bible in the same sentence that just doesn't sit right with me...

  • Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:32 pm Agree: 16   Disagree: 1

    "An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after conservatives denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would rid the Scriptures of male pronouns."

    If they try to do that nonsense again the conservatives will be denouncing their plans again. As well they should.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

The second book in the Seasons of Grace series will be available soon. The Missing is filled with mystery and family secrets, love and loss, heartbreak and healing — all wrapped

Featured Advertiser Links