Beware the "New" NIV

Are all translations the same?

The Bible is God's Word, plain and simple. We believe that God superintended the writers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to write it without error in their own personalities as given to us in the original manuscripts. That means that God inspired the Bible, not any translation. But are there better translations for us to read and study than others? Yes, it does make a difference whet we study and read.

My Translation History
Let me give you a little of my history. For many years I used the King James Version. Most everything I memorized and studied came from that version. Then in college, for the sake of study and the use of the original language, I used the New American Standard Version. When I got into the ministry in the 80's, my pastor used it as well. I was very happy. Soon, when I went to seminary, my new pastor used the New International Version. I soon grew to appreciate it. I especially liked these verses:

• 2 Peter 1:21, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." and 
• 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

I especially liked the way it explained inspiration of the Bible by saying that it was "God-breathed." What a powerful translation! I was happy and recommended the NIV to others, used it in my preaching, and studied and read it as well.

The First Updated NIV
Then, the translators of the NIV told us that they were going to begin work on a newer more up to date version that was much more gender neutral than the 1984 version. Many were not pleased. If the Bible's is gender neutral, then that's fine, but for man to translate a word that was intended to be gender specific into something the original had no intention of saying...big problem.

So the company, because of the uproar, scuttled the change and simply made it a new version called the TNIV. It was not received well. No one seemed kto like it, and it didn't sell. It was a marketing disaster. In the mean time, many had been working on much more faithful translations like the ESV and the HCSB (my personal favorite). The people had been given some good, viable choices and many gravitated to those translations. the result was the TNIV sales waned and its days were numbered. The idea of getting people to switch over failed as the church found other versions that affirmed the historical Christian faith.

With all that said, I must ask, "Is the new NIV 2011 more the 1984 version we have all come to know, love, and appreciate or more like the TNIV which was panned by scholars and laity alike?"

Comparison
Here's an article I just read that compared all the differences between the 1984 NIV and the New 2011 NIV. Here are their findings:

 An example of the way the translators of the NIV 2011
take liberties with. Other translations say simply "fishers of men".
This is but the tip of the iceberg.

"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. (bold mine) 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.

This report was published by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), 2825 Lexington Road, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40280. http://www.cbmw.org/. (502) 897-4065.

Go here for more of this article that actually does a verse by verse comparison:
An Evaluation of Gender Language in the in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible

Conclusion

So here is my conclusion, translators that present to the laity the word of God have a sacred trust. This is the Bible, not Shakespeare. That is, good translators can't just change the intent ofnthe manuscript to suit the culture. Otherwise, once this path is taken, there would no point at which to stop pleasing that same culture. What would be the next target? You see, whenever culture demands we loosen up on the language of the Bible to make it more culturally relevant, we are then allowing a standard to conform to the culture rather than the culture conforming to the standard. The Bible's original manuscripts are our standard. These cannot be changed because our culture demands more relevance. Church of Jesus Christ, be aware!