The New NIV Compared With The TNIV And ESV

[Rippon]

the 2011 NIV just was updated for gender rendering issues!

You are a guy who either can't retain information or intentionally "forgets" to remember.

It was not updated for "gender-rendering issues" whatever that means. You're the only one who uses that terminology.

Review my posts 22,31,32 and 34. I am tired of answering your same old questions over and over again.

Not saying that is now not a decent version, but just that the 1984 was superior...

Refer to post 4 and you will see how that just is not the case.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are a guy who either can't retain information or intentionally "forgets" to remember.

It was not updated for "gender-rendering issues" whatever that means. You're the only one who uses that terminology.

Review my posts 22,31,32 and 34. I am tired of answering your same old questions over and over again.

Refer to post 4 and you will see how that just is not the case.

Know thatt the Niv was revised in order to reflect more comtemporary english grammar/terminology, but the direct result also did have not warrented gendering revisions placed into the translation!

 

[Rippon]

Know thatt [sic]the Niv was revised in order to reflect more comtemporary [sic]english [sic]grammar/terminology, but the direct result also did have not warrented [sic]gendering revisions placed into the translation!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rippon]

They Changed the 84 NIV!

There has been so much of a big deal made about the differences between the text of the 84 NIV contrasted with the text of the 2011 NIV. In reality most of the differences are quite minor;and most are not related to inclusive language.

As in my prior post, I will cite instances in a few books of the canon where the current NIV reading is indentical with the TNIV. The renderings of my snips (it's not necesary to quote entire verses) differ with the 84 edition --but alters nothing substantial of the meaning.

The 84 rendering will be on top and the TNIV/2011 reading below.

Lev.

1:8 : on the burning wood
on the wood that is burning
2:5 : of fine flour
of the finest flour
2:9 : as an offering made by fire
as a food offering
4:12 : burn it in a wood fire
burn it there in a wood fire
4:26 : for the man's sins
for the leader's sin

Numbers

1:4 : each the
each of them
1:13 : Ocran
Okran
1:17 : had been given
had been specified
1:18 : indicated
registered
1:50 : the Testimony
the covenant law
1:51 : who goes near it shall be
who approaches it is to be

Deut.

1:1 : desert
wilderness
1:8 : that the LORD
the LORD
2:4 : your brothers
your relatives
3:10 : Salecah
Salekah
3:14 : Maacathites
Maakathites
3:17 : (the Salt Sea)
(that is, the Dead Sea)
3:18 : your brother Israelites
the other Israelites

Joshua

1:4 : Great Sea
Mediterranean Sea
1:5 : stand up against you
stand against you
1:9 : terrified
afraid
1:11 : supplies
provisions
2:9 : has given this land to you
has given you this land
2:11 : melted
melted in fear
3:3 : and the priests who are Levites
and the Levitical priests

 

[Rippon]

Warning!

Y1, do not quote my entire post to make merely a line or two in response. You waste too much valuable space. Just cite what is relevant or don't quote at all.

 

[Rippon]

Matthew

As in my prior post, I will cite instances in a few books of the canon where the current NIV reading is indentical with the TNIV. The renderings of my snips (it's not necesary to quote entire verses) differ with the 84 edition --but alters nothing substantial of the meaning.

The 84 rendering will be on top and the TNIV/2011 reading below.


2:2
in the east
when it rose

2:6
will be the shepherd of my people
will shepherd my people

3:2
is near
has come near

3:6
lighting on him
alighting on him

4:12
he returned
he withdrew

4:23
preaching
proclaiming

5:2
saying
He said

5:9
sons of God
children of God [see KJV,NET,WEB]

5:13
trampled by men
trampled underfoot [see Weymouth,ESV,NET]

5:16
before men
before others [see ESV,NET]

5:21
Do not
You shall not

 

[Rippon]

Herea few differnces between the 1984 edition of the NIV and the current one. As you will see, the differences are rather minor. When you hear :"They changed thousands of verses." --It needs to be evaluated. The content of the verses remain very stable between the two.

I thank Robert Slowley for the help I got from his website.

This will be only from the book of Romans --slight changes. To speed things up I will not note the references although some of you might get some clues.

84 : at --2011 : in
of/about
the other /another
,/.
infants /little children
no one/there is no one
are justified/all are justified
his justice/his righteousness
the Scripture/Scripture
they whose/those whose
law/the law
are of the faith/have the faith
rejoice/boast
rejoice/glory
when/while
was/is
./!
in/through
added/brought in
of sin/ruled by sin
freed/set free
to God/of God
when/although
through/because
glorious freedom/freedom and glory
this/ these things
in/through
Is God/Or is God
choosing/although choosing
"stumbling stone"/stumbling stone
that comes from God/of God
end/culmination
trusts/believes
above/about
fullness/full inclusion
be afraid/tremble
him/them
to/for
Just/For just
God's people/Lord's people
everybody/everyone
my friends/my dear friends
because/as a matter
its/a
orgies/carousing
confess/acknowledge
O Gentiles/you Gentiles
I have/Yet I have
see/visit
fruit/contribution
fellow workers/co-workers

So before the slash/it's the 84 edition. And afterwards it's the 2011 edition. A number of these differences are repeated whereas I did not note them.

So this hue and cry of the 2011 is so different from the 1984 is really without merit. It is slightly different in a good many places. But in my estimation it improves things.

 

[The American Dream]

Rippon you seem to have a good handle on all the versions. Which do you personally use?

 

[Rippon]

Rippon you seem to have a good handle on all the versions. Which do you personally use?

Is this a set up for a joke?

Obviously, the NIV is my favorite. I also like the NLT. I appreciate the MLB, 20th Century NT, Weymouth, Norlie, Lattimore, REB, NET Bible,Tyndale's 1536 NT, and others.

How could I have neglected to mention the Phillips? I love it.

 

[The American Dream]

Is this a set up for a joke?

Obviously, the NIV is my favorite. I also like the NLT. I appreciate the MLB, 20th Century NT, Weymouth, Norlie, Lattimore, REB, NET Bible,Tyndale's 1536 NT, and others.

No, no joke. I use NIV and NKJV. I have never read the ESV. Thanks for your input. But if you would like a set up for a joke, since the last Pope was named John Paul, should his one be named George Ringo?

 

[Yeshua1]

Herea few differnces between the 1984 edition of the NIV and the current one. As you will see, the differences are rather minor. When you hear :"They changed thousands of verses." --It needs to be evaluated. The content of the verses remain very stable between the two.

I thank Robert Slowley for the help I got from his website.

This will be only from the book of Romans --slight changes. To speed things up I will not note the references although some of you might get some clues.

84 : at --2011 : in
of/about
the other /another
,/.
infants /little children
no one/there is no one
are justified/all are justified
his justice/his righteousness
the Scripture/Scripture
they whose/those whose
law/the law
are of the faith/have the faith
rejoice/boast
rejoice/glory
when/while
was/is
./!
in/through
added/brought in
of sin/ruled by sin
freed/set free
to God/of God
when/although
through/because
glorious freedom/freedom and glory
this/ these things
in/through
Is God/Or is God
choosing/although choosing
"stumbling stone"/stumbling stone
that comes from God/of God
end/culmination
trusts/believes
above/about
fullness/full inclusion
be afraid/tremble
him/them
to/for
Just/For just
God's people/Lord's people
everybody/everyone
my friends/my dear friends
because/as a matter
its/a
orgies/carousing
confess/acknowledge
O Gentiles/you Gentiles
I have/Yet I have
see/visit
fruit/contribution
fellow workers/co-workers

So before the slash/it's the 84 edition. And afterwards it's the 2011 edition. A number of these differences are repeated whereas I did not note them.

So this hue and cry of the 2011 is so different from the 1984 is really without merit. It is slightly different in a good many places. But in my estimation it improves things.

Except that it does render at times some unneeded renderings that would tend to be seen as supporting those who try to get "male bias" from the Bible, and also at times seems to water down the Psalms referencing to Jesus as the Man, Son of Man...

 

[Rippon]

Mark

84 refers to the 1984 edition of the NIV
11 refers to the 2011 current edition

1:2
84 : It is written
11 : as it is written

1:3
84 : desert
11 : wilderness

1:10
84 : As Jesus
11 : Just as Jesus

1:15
84 : is near
11 : has come near

1:23
84 : evil spirit
11 : impure spirit

1:30
84 : they told Jesus
11 : they immediately called Jesus

1:42
84 : cured
11 : cleansed

2:3
84 : paralytic
11 : paralyzed

2:15
84 : "sinners"
11 : sinners

2:21
84 : If he does
11 : Otherwise

3:1
84 : he
11 : Jesus

3:8
84 : all he was doing
11 : about all he was doing

3:22
84 : Beelzebub
11 : Beelzebul

4:32
84 : birds of the air
11 : birds

 

[Rippon]

Mark

This time I will not signify the two editions. Just remember that the 1984 version will be on top, and the 2011 will be below.

5:3
any more
anymore

5:19
family
own people

5:23
and pleaded
He pleaded

5:38
ruler
leader

5:42
walked around
to walk around

6:6
And he was
He was

6:9
tunic
shirt

6:36
so they can
so that they can

6:41
to set before
to distribute

6:47
when evening came
Later that night

6:48
About the fourth watch of the night
shortly before dawn

6:56
who touched him
who touched it

7:5
with 'unclean' hands
with defiled hands

7:9
And he said to them
And he continued

7:22
greed
adultery

7:27
their dogs
the dogs

 

[Rippon]

Mark

Continuing with the 84 NIV at the top and the current NIV below.

8:12
miraculous sign
sign

8:26
Don't go
Don't even go

9:7
O
You

9:39
No one
For no one

9:43
to sin
to stumble

9:50
salt in yourselves
salt among yourselves

10:8
but one
but no flesh

11:3
tell him
say

11:10
in the highest
in the higest heaven

11:15
temple area
temple courts

12:16
portrait
image

12:17
Give to
Give back to

12:29
the Lord
The Lord

12:38
be greeted
be greeted with respect

12:40
Such men
These men

12:42
only a fraction of a penny
only a few cents

 

[Rippon]

Concluding Examples From Mark

84 at the top, and 2011 below.

13:15
on the foof
on the housetop

14:15
upper room
room upstairs

14:19
Surely not I
Surely you don't mean me?

14:37
Could you not
Couldn't you

14:38
the body
the flesh

14:41
betrayed
delivered

14:53
elders and teachers
the elders and the teachers

15:10
out of envy
out of self-interest

15:27
robbers
rebels

15:40
Joses
Joseph

16:15
good news
gospel

 

[Rippon]

Now some of you may be thinking that these examples don't establish much. I beg to differ with you. The improvements have been incrementally making the NIV better. Is there much of a difference between the 84 edition and the 2011 edition? On the one hand the overall text remains as it was. But on other hand the revision does make a difference. To an objective reader there certainly has been a good upgrade.

All good translations have to revise the text over the years --it's a necessary thing. Time doesn't stand still.

The NASB is due for another upgrade. It has been 20 years since the last one.

The NLT has had two stages of improvements --the 2004, and the 2007 revisions.

Of course the ESV, which inherited the 1971 RSV, has made improvements. Yet they have been at a snail's pace.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now some of you may be thinking that these examples don't establish much. I beg to differ with you. The improvements have been incrementally making the NIV better. Is there much of a difference between the 84 edition and the 2011 edition? On the one hand the overall text remains as it was. But on other hand the revision does make a difference. To an objective reader there certainly has been a good upgrade.

All good translations have to revise the text over the years --it's a necessary thing. Time doesn't stand still.

The NASB is due for another upgrade. It has been 20 years since the last one.

The NLT has had two stages of improvements --the 2004, and the 2007 revisions.

Of course the ESV, which inherited the 1971 RSV, has made improvements. Yet they have been at a snail's pace.

My 1st bible was an 84 edition & I still have it & use it. It gets the word across, particularly to those young in the Faith...... I will try to adapt as I can & the newly noted brethren can.....but there is soooo many roadblocks that I do not dwell on the bible they use, but I am thankful they use one. I did try the NKJV because it takes the old English outa the text....nothing more difficult than to try to teach scripture when someone is trying (struggling) with understanding the text.

 

[Yeshua1]

Now some of you may be thinking that these examples don't establish much. I beg to differ with you. The improvements have been incrementally making the NIV better. Is there much of a difference between the 84 edition and the 2011 edition? On the one hand the overall text remains as it was. But on other hand the revision does make a difference. To an objective reader there certainly has been a good upgrade.

All good translations have to revise the text over the years --it's a necessary thing. Time doesn't stand still.

The NASB is due for another upgrade. It has been 20 years since the last one.

The NLT has had two stages of improvements --the 2004, and the 2007 revisions.

Of course the ESV, which inherited the 1971 RSV, has made improvements. Yet they have been at a snail's pace.

Why would there be any need for the revision of any good MV though?

The problem with much of what passes as being a revision is NOT that we have discovered any more manuscripts, or have fresh bew insight, but that we keep on trying at times to co exist with current cultural views on certain issues. period...

And how can a person not be able to understand the 1984 Niv, or Esv, or Hcsb as when they were originally done before any furhter revisioning?

 

[Rippon]

Why would there be any need for the revision of any good MV though?

Think this one out. Why don't you give some reasons for the revision of any translation.

that we keep on trying at times to co exist with current cultural views on certain issues. period...

Why do you insist on repeating the same old banalities?

And how can a person not be able to understand the 1984 Niv, or Esv, or Hcsb as when they were originally done before any furhter revisioning?

Those versions, before future revisions, were understandable --just not as accurate. No man-made effort is 100% perfect. Don't you agree? There is always room for improvement?

 

[Yeshua1]

Think this one out. Why don't you give some reasons for the revision of any translation.

Why do you insist on repeating the same old banalities?

Those versions, before future revisions, were understandable --just not as accurate. No man-made effort is 100% perfect. Don't you agree? There is always room for improvement?

I o not see the need to go into more Inclusive language renderings though as making the translation more accurate, as sometimes they made it "miss the mark"

And still see a legit need to revise when there is a real increase in knowledge, or in the source materials, or in the tools used to study texts with...