Niv 2011

[Dan Doll]

The head pastor of my church held up a (NIV 2011) Bible today in service and claims that the whole congregation should look into using this Bible when we read scripture. I have not heard much about this new translation. I was not a fan of the TNIV when it was released, but I have only looked into this (the NIV 2011) recently. Has anyone heard any information on this translation or could send me links about this new translation?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

My understanding is that is a revision of the NIV that incorporates some of the gender neutral language of the TNIV. Other than that, it is very similar to the previous edition. The question then becomes what is the motivation for doing this? The answer to that question will give you alot of insight into the thinking of the translation commitee and then you can make your own judgment as to whether or not you would put any faith into a translation produced by said commitee.

 

[HoldFast]

The question then becomes what is the motivation for doing this?

This is what I don't understand. Were NIV fans really upset about the gender usage in the previous NIV edition? I can't imagine that was the case. Therefore, it appears there was some type of "gender agenda" but what that agenda would be about I haven't a clue.

 

[Rom]

Hi Dan!
Welcome to the PuritanBoard! I see that your church is PCUSA, hopefully one of the more orthodox churches left in the denomination? What translation have you been using thus far?

 

["William The Baptist"]

I am not sure if this is the correct way to direct you to another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/sbc-rejection-niv-2011-a-68288/

The gender neutral changes is the biggest thing. I am not a fan. You could say it is very feministically friendly. For example compare these two verses of NIV's:

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.

 

[DMcFadden]

For a very full evaluation of the NIV 2011 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, cf. https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/cbmw final analysis of 2011 niv.pdf

Among their conclusions:

The 2011 NIV makes several noteworthy improvements over the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV,
including 933 improvements in accuracy in translating gender language in places where CBMW
had criticized the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. And the entire translation process was carried on in a
commendable spirit of transparency and openness, for which Zondervan and the NIV‘s
Committee on Bible Translation are to be appreciated.

However, the 2011 NIV was based not on the current NIV (1984) but on the TNIV (2005). The
2011 NIV retains 2,766 (or 75%) of the TNIV‘s problematic gender-related translations that led
CBMW, and eventually the larger evangelical world, to reject the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. We
still consider these 2,766 examples to be inaccurate translations of terms that have male meaning
in the original Hebrew or Greek, male meaning that is lost in this new NIV. Therefore, this
translation cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language or
in its translation of singular and plural pronouns generally. We consider this too high a price to
pay for attaining gender-inclusiveness in a translation.

In addition, the 2011 NIV changes some key verses on women‘s role in the church so that they
favor an evangelical feminist position, especially in translating 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that
differs with all other commonly-used modern English translations and that gives women a wide
open door to serve as pastors and elders in churches, contrary to the actual teaching of the New
Testament.

We regret, therefore, that we cannot recommend the 2011 NIV as a sufficiently reliable English
translation. And unless Zondervan changes its mind and keeps the current edition of the 1984
NIV in print, the 2011 NIV will soon be the only edition of the NIV that is available. Therefore,
unless Zondervan changes its mind, we cannot recommend the NIV itself.

 

[Edward]

My suggestion would be to start by asking the pastor why he is recommending it.

 

[elnwood]

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (confessional Lutherans) assembled a translation evaluation committee to evaluate the NIV2011 with respect to using it as their translation of choice for their publications.

They assembled a group of their scholars to study the issues and communicate with the NIV translation committee, and have had numerous interactions with Douglas Moo, the chair of the NIV committee. (Moo is a complementarian who contributed one of the main chapters to CBMW's "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," and there are several other complementarians on the translation committee. It's important to note this: much nonsense has been spread regarding the NIV having an egalitarian, feminist agenda.)

What follows is their initial evaluation report, and I commend it to all of you as a responsible evaluation of the NIV2011.
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf

I believe the way WELS evaluated the translation is a model of how Christians ought to consider translations: forming a committee to discuss, using scholarly expertise, and discussing with the translators themselves about their philosophy of translation, over a period of over a year.

Compare that with the Southern Baptist Convention, which passed a resolution on the floor against the NIV 2011. It was proposed by a layman with no scholarly background, and voted on by uninformed layman, who were influenced by false statements spoken on the floor, including implying that the NIV2011 said that God was not masculine.

 

[steadfast7]

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.

I don't see a lot of difference between these two renderings. In fact to "assume" authority is a pretty good way of putting it, no? Thoughts?

 

[elnwood]

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.

I don't see a lot of difference between these two renderings. In fact to "assume" authority is a pretty good way of putting it, no? Thoughts?

This verb only appears once in the New Testament, so its meaning isn't as clear as we'd like. BDAG glosses it "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to." The NIV2011 translation seems well within that range.

CBMW argues that "assume authority" is an egalitarian translation:
"The new NIV(2011)’s translation of authentein designedly lends itself to a common current egalitarian misinterpretation of this passage (i.e., that Paul is only addressing the case of women illegitimately “assuming” authority, rather than prohibiting women from having/exercising authority as teacher/shepherds of the church)."

Personally, I think CBMW is way off base on that. "Assume authority" is a neutral rendering directly from the lexicon. Besides, the KJV has "usurp authority," and I don't see CBMW accusing the KJV translators of having an egalitarian agenda.

 

[steadfast7]

Agree. "to assume" is a mark of attitude, whereas to "take" authority indicates an action. Attitudes are deeper and more sinister in some sense than actions, so this could be read as more favourable to the complementarian position in fact.

 

[elnwood]

Hi Dan!
Welcome to the PuritanBoard! I see that your church is PCUSA, hopefully one of the more orthodox churches left in the denomination? What translation have you been using thus far?

From our Confessionally Reformed brand of Christianity, the NIV seems liberal, but you have to understand that from the standpoint of mainline denominations like the PCUSA, the NIV is far-right conservative. The World Council of Churches, of which the PCUSA is a member, translated the NRSV, so that is the standard Bible in the PCUSA, and has been for decades.

The Biblical Studies division at Fuller Theological Seminary, largely a PCUSA institution, approves specific translations for use in their classes based on their level of gender inclusivity. For many years, the NRSV and the TNIV were the only approved translations. Recently they approved the Common English Bible, a new ecumenical translation. (The NIV2011 did not get approved because it used the word "mankind.")
Common English Bible Replaces TNIV at Seminary, Christian News

So if a PCUSA pastor is endorsing the NIV2011, and not the Common English Bible or NRSV, he is on the conservative end of the PCUSA.

 

[Reformation Monk]

Don,

In my humble opinion; there really is no more "conservative end" in the PCUSA.

If there isn't good expositional preaching done, then in my opinion, it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

If the Bible isn't looked upon as the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God, then it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

When you see adults walking around with Rob Bell books rather then the Bible, then ...... etc... etc...

My advice to Dan is to not worry about what the ruling elders want to use as their translation and rather, to start looking at what's being done and said all across the board.

I realize that this is a really tough position with the OP because he's a Youth Pastor. This has got to be frustrating, being Reformed and a leader in the PCUSA. My prayers are with you Dan.

 

[JoannaV]

I second Edward. Unless the pastor has a significant reason to prefer the NIV 2011, I do not see why he would advise everybody to spend money on a new Bible. Either he feels there is a significant reason, or he did not think about this thoroughly before making his comment. So perhaps see what he has to say

 

[elnwood]

Don,

In my humble opinion; there really is no more "conservative end" in the PCUSA.

Largely, I agree with you -- there are very few conservatives in the PCUSA. But the PCUSA is very diverse and largely depends on region. The PCUSA in California, for example, is more conservative than in other places in the U.S.

If there isn't good expositional preaching done, then in my opinion, it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

If the Bible isn't looked upon as the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God, then it really doesn't matter what Bible is being used.

You seem to presume that there is no good expository preaching or inerrantists in the PCUSA. That's simply not true. My Greek exegesis and homiletics professor is a PCUSA pastor, and he taught us that the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant, and taught us to preach expository messages.

 

[Rich Koster]

Dennis, you always seem to lay hold of goodies like this. Thanks for being alert.

For a very full evaluation of the NIV 2011 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, cf. https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/cbmw final analysis of 2011 niv.pdf

Among their conclusions:

The 2011 NIV makes several noteworthy improvements over the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV,
including 933 improvements in accuracy in translating gender language in places where CBMW
had criticized the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. And the entire translation process was carried on in a
commendable spirit of transparency and openness, for which Zondervan and the NIV‘s
Committee on Bible Translation are to be appreciated.

However, the 2011 NIV was based not on the current NIV (1984) but on the TNIV (2005). The
2011 NIV retains 2,766 (or 75%) of the TNIV‘s problematic gender-related translations that led
CBMW, and eventually the larger evangelical world, to reject the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. We
still consider these 2,766 examples to be inaccurate translations of terms that have male meaning
in the original Hebrew or Greek, male meaning that is lost in this new NIV. Therefore, this
translation cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language or
in its translation of singular and plural pronouns generally. We consider this too high a price to
pay for attaining gender-inclusiveness in a translation.

In addition, the 2011 NIV changes some key verses on women‘s role in the church so that they
favor an evangelical feminist position, especially in translating 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that
differs with all other commonly-used modern English translations and that gives women a wide
open door to serve as pastors and elders in churches, contrary to the actual teaching of the New
Testament.

We regret, therefore, that we cannot recommend the 2011 NIV as a sufficiently reliable English
translation. And unless Zondervan changes its mind and keeps the current edition of the 1984
NIV in print, the 2011 NIV will soon be the only edition of the NIV that is available. Therefore,
unless Zondervan changes its mind, we cannot recommend the NIV itself.

 

[Reformation Monk]

Don,

You're right, I apologize for my earlier comment. I'm just a little frustrated with the PCUSA. I've was involved for many years and after this new amendment change and other recent events over the past couple of years, at least where I live, it's a all going downhill very very fast. It was a very tough decision for my family and I but we just couldn't stay members any longer.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I recently bought a parallel KJV and NIV2011 bible to compare various verses particular to Reformed doctrine. So far, I have not run into any examples where I was alarmed by the NIV2011 renderings that would prevent me from making the same arguments for the doctrines of grace that I can with the KJV or the NKJV. Am not saying I think the NIV2011 is a wonderful translation, as I prefer the Byzantine manuscript traditions, but it is not a bible I would assign to the work of the devil or anything.

AMR