-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The End of the NIV84?
- Thread starter RG2
- Start date
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
That is NOT TRUE...Thankfully
GT...That is simply NOT TRUE...I just pulled it up moments ago at the following BibleGateway.com link :
King James Version (KJV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
I use it fairly frequently for posting Bible quotes here on the BB.
Bro.Greg:saint:
GT...That is simply NOT TRUE...I just pulled it up moments ago at the following BibleGateway.com link :
King James Version (KJV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
I use it fairly frequently for posting Bible quotes here on the BB.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Bronconagurski
New Member
He replied to your quote about sticking with the KJV, but I think he was talking about the NIV 84 not being on biblegateway.com. No one will ever remove the KJV in the U.S. because there is no patent here like in the U.K. I don't understand anyone keeping a bible from someone that wants one, no matter the English translation. It it ain't about money, then why keep the patents? They will come out with it again after a certain year anniversary, you wait and see.
There are no "patents" on printed material. It's copyrights and that is in effect for a certain amount of time no matter what. They don't choose to "keep" them. One can choose to not be paid but the copyrights are still in effect. The ESV is free in digital format - they just want the Word out there.
But realize that the KJV IS copyrighted if there is any other material in the Bible as well including notes or maps.
Bronconagurski
New Member
Ok, so Biblica owns the copyright to the NIV 84, but that doesn't answer the question why they are denying people the opportunity to read it online. I just sent them an email asking them why.
And you are right, the study notes in KJV study bibles have copyrights, but that is no big deal.
The NET bible also provides their bible online at no charge, which is great.
I don't think it should have been done, but I do not think it's strange that it was done. To me it is easy to see why it was done, and why they came out with the New NIV so shortly after the TNIV. The TNIV carried way too much controversy and questions. The New NIV, going back to the NIV name but essentially being the TNIV, sought to remove the controversy and questions. Removing the NIV84 for the general public basically removes at least the two big questions "Why are there two?" and "What's the difference." I think the publishers know that there is a lot of controversy over the gender neutrality of the text.
I believe the CEO of Biblica said it best when he said that they underestimated the loyalty people had to the NIV. I just see this whole thing as a way they are capitalizing on that loyalty. Most people tend to go more by name recognition than they do content. With the new NIV just occupying space in the old NIV spaces, I don't think most people would think to look at copyright dates or anything like that before buying. I think that's what Biblica is expecting.
Bronconagurski
New Member
I remember when Coke thought they were gonna be smart and improve upon classic coke. They underestimated brand loyalty and it backfired bigtime. Now this is not quite the same as we are talking about translating the bible.
I personally do not think that taking away the NIV 84 to avoid controversy is a good reason. Their translation should have to withstand criticism like anything else. What you have told me here makes good business sense, just not good spiritual sense imo.
Think that the main reason made was to update to "reflect" subtle undercutting male authority, as many see the Bible as being too much into "male authority"
If someone likes the 84 so much there are plenty of used bookstores out there. I even have one or two that I would sell.
The translation in 84 was good but the TNIV and now NIV 2011 are better
How are they "better"? Explain.
Better means improved. The scholarship has fine-tuned things. The language has been put in more contemporary form. It is far better than the KJVish ESV and even the NASBU junior :HCSB.
You think the 2011 NIV has not ungone criticism?! Boy are you ever wrong. It goes double-time for the TNIV in the first decade of this century. Boycotts were in effect. World mag was very unChristian in their "reporting",Wayne Grudem was off the charts,L.Ryken was completely unglued,Wayne Dobson displayed his vast ignorance to a very large audience etc.etc.
actually would tend to see both of those versions as being superior to the Niv , at least in how they have decided to handle being mor e"formal/literal" in translating the bible unto us in english! Less dependent upon what it means to us today in our culture to more of trying to keep what it would have meant to them in biblical culture/times!
think that much of the criticism though was well deserved, as the Niv2011 "update" seemed to be more interested in getting the bible to be "more contemporary" rather than in retaining just what God had actually intended!
The whole reason you go through the painful process of translation and revision is to be more contemporary, more relevant because language changes and what was, is now no longer. The charge that they just wanted to be more contemporary instead of accurate is just plain nonsense since one is the other.
The NIV 1984 was dated in language usage and scholarship, it needed to be updated.
The NIV 1984 was dated in language usage and scholarship, it needed to be updated.
Then how in the world did the KJV last for over 400 years! Not only that, why, I believe people are actually still using it, and understanding it today! How can this possibly be, when the NIV has needed updating twice in less than 30 years! :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
#1 - The KJV did not last for 400 years but instead went through many revisions.
#2 - The KJV's language is terribly outdated for our modern culture.
Then I must ask, how did people from even 50 years ago (our "modern culture" hasn't changed that much in 50 years) use and have no problems with the KJV? The whole "people just don't understand the KJV, and it's outdated for our modern society" mantra makes me chuckle. Use whatever version you like, just don't claim the KJV is outdated and can't be understood by people today. I'm 62 years old, grew up reading the KJV from the time I was 6 years old, and had no more problem understanding it than I did any other book I was learning to read. I just don't buy that excuse. People aren't any less intelligent now than they were when I was young, or for the last 150 years, while the KJV was the PREDOMINANT Bible version used. If children and adults from the last few hundred years could read and understand the KJV, don't tell me people today can't.
A few reasons:
1 - Education was different. Now they don't even teach decent grammar in school.
2 - There WERE people who just didn't "get" it - and they just never read the Bible.
3 - Language changes. I just read Bonhoeffer and even reading the letters that were written between him and his friends was a very different language than what we speak today. Yes, I know probably some of the letters were translated from German but there were letters in there written in English as well and I was thinking of just how differently they are written from what would be written today. There was a much higher level of language at the time.
We have a woman in our congregation who has learning disabilities. She reads at probably the 4th grade level but she does better if she can hear a book being read so she tries to get the audiobook rather than the reading book. The only audio Bible she can get right now is the KJV and she said that she just can't understand it. She's in her 50s. What should we do? Allow her to struggle and just not understand God's Word - or give her another version that just might help to bring God's Word to her in her own language? I'd say the latter just might be a little bit better.