Featured Why is the New International Version Bible translation so popular? What are your thoughts on that?

The reason I bought a NIV was simply because our Church had them as pew Bibles and our former Pastor used them when he preached. I imagine that is the real reason a lot of people bought them. But then when I read the Bible at home, I used other translations that were supposed to be more accurate to the original text.

 

Conservative
Understandable
Readable

Rob

 

Just my opinion, nothing more...

I’m not a big fan of the NIV.
IMO it’s a milk toast version, acceptable but bland and a bit soggy.
It doesn’t have any outstanding characteristics that set it apart.
But it doesn’t offend too many people either.
it gets the job done.

Rob

 

Yes, the Southern Baptist Convention has declared:

"we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community"

"the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards....we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV"

"the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture"

June 29, 2011 • Southern Baptist Convention Declares Its Opposition to NIV

Albert Mohler "endorsed a resolution passed by convention messengers that calls the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible an 'inaccurate translation' the SBC cannot recommend."

"the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a Louisville, Ky.-based group...[said] the newest translation still had problems....The NIV 2011, CBMW contends, changes the meaning of the text in numerous verses, and...'removes the emphasis on an individual, personal relationship with God'...CBMW said it 'cannot commend' the updated translation."

Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said of the resolution: "Southern Baptists simply had to support it, and support it overwhelmingly, on the basis of the fact that what it said was patently true"...."The resolution, Mohler said, reflected his concerns 'related to the gender issue and specifically related to the linkage between a verbal plenary understanding of inspiration and the importance of an accurate and formal translation'."

Mohler: "the convention sends a very clear signal that we take the issue of faithfulness in Bible translation and accuracy in Bible translation to be of utmost, nonnegotiable importance."

 

Personally I see Mohler’s stance as a political move more than a translational issue.

The Council on Biblical ..... is trying to force an issue and make future versions tow the line.

Interesting how apparently the Lockman Foundation in their 2020 update of the NASV is out of step.

IMO, the versions are doing what the popular folk knew all along, “man” generally means “man and woman”, but sometimes it just means “man”.
The updated language merely clarifies the term in a written manner.

Rob

 

Opps double post

 

A few thoughts:

1. One of the early modern translations out of the gate.
2. Their main competitor Good News Bible (Good News for Modern Man) had theology issues with conservatives (e.g., "blood".)
3. Used conservative theology words and concepts.
4. Teamed up with Zondervan.

 

Funny thing is the CSB essentially did to the HCSB what the 2011 revision did to NIV.

 

I don't oppose the NIV84 but I am not a big fan of the 2011 edition though I do use it. I personally have an issue with the gender choices. While I do not agree that it is out of meaning range, I do not believe it is correct to translate it that way when there is an equivalent word that is understood plainly in the context.

 

Due to mainly big push from its publisher Zondervan, and also that many Evangelicals and churches bought into it as their standard version to use behind pulpit and in classrooms!

 

Yes, aside from the gender issues, which, as I said, are technically within range of acceptable translation.

 

I believe so. Though they have it in a footnote.