Talk:New International Version

Regarding this passage from the article:

Among the differences in the TNIV is that it will use more gender-neutral language, referring in some places, for example, to "children of God" instead of "sons of God" and changing phrases such as "a man is justified by faith" to "a person is justified by faith." Male references to God, however, will not be modified.

Would it be fair to say that this is the same or similar approach taken to gender-neutral language that was used in gong from the Revised Standard Version to the New Revised Standard Version? Sounds the same to me, but I want to verify before changing the text. Thanks, Wesley

---

According to IBS:

2. Trademarks. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society in the United States and other countries. IBS, the IBS Logo, and IBSDIRECT.COM and the IBSDIRECT.COM Logo are trademarks and service marks of IBS. All other trademarks, service marks, and logos used in this Web Site are the trademarks, service marks, or logos of their respective owners. Other trademarks of IBS may be added from time to time on this site. In order to preclude confusion among our visitors, the trademarks and service marks of IBS may not be used in any manner in connection with any product or service that is not a product or service of IBS, without the prior written consent of IBS. By using this Web Site, you acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the IBS trademarks and agree that you will not in any way infringe, either directly or indirectly, the IBS trademarks.

http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/bibles/termsofuse.php

hoshie

Not sure why the above was posted as it doesn't have anything to do with our use of the IBS and NIV names. In any case, I've removed the registered trademark symbols from the article, since we're under no obligation to mark third-party trademarks. Psychonaut 15:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Line removed

I removed this line:

The translators used liberal textual criticism in translating this version. The New Testament is based mainly on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

According to the NIV preface, the NIV used an eclectic Gk text - NOT W-H! iHoshie 13:05, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

And I moved these two for discussion:

The NIV has sometimes been criticized for sacrificing literalness more than would have been needed for achieving readability. Non-Protestants notice a decidedly Protestant bias in it.

Who makes these criticisms? -- Stephen Gilbert 03:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Most non-protestants. For example, certain words, abiguities, and contradictions, are glossed over, e.g. the appearance of two different Creation accounts in Genesis. The NIV also completely cuts out at least 1 whole biblical verse which is present in other versions, e.g. KJV (unfortunately I cannot remember which it is, though I do remember it is part of a gospel)

Yes, many verses are missing in the NIV and its Greek Text. There are also many parts of verses that are missing. --God's Webmaster 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section (by itself or under controversy) with the missing verses and maybe some sort of explanation? MattFBC 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Verses may be omitted for any number of reasons: they may appear in only a few manuscripts (or none of the Greek manuscripts, just in some of the ancient translations: Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11); they may repeat passages in one or more nearby verses (Mark 9:44, 46); or they may contradict or appear to contradict other Bible passages (for the NIV I can't think of any specific examples, though there may be some in the Old Testament). Usually footnotes are included to explain to readers familiar with the King James or other Bibles that include the verses in the main text why they have been omitted. Often the "missing verses" are included in the footnotes, but they may even placed in the main text but bracketed (or simply footnoted at the end explaining the issue or controversy). I believe the NIV usually uses footnotes to explain missing verses. 66.234.218.146 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Non-Protestants" WERE involved

I am Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and most Lutherans tend to see ourselves as distinct from "Protestantism" since Luther predated that term. There were Lutherans involved in translation of the NIV. There were also Anglican/Episcopalian translators, and they often see themselves as closer to Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. I assume that by "Protestant" the article is referring to Christians in general who are not part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions. Currently we use the NIV in our liturgy and as the basis for our Concordia Self-Study Bible, though we are adopting the English Standard Version once our new hymnal is released in 2006.--MarshallStack 17:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Prefix for the NIV itself says they drew across all main line christian denominations, including Catholic to prevent denomination-bias. Joncnunn 19:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Roman Catholics were not involved in the NIV translation process (nor were Eastern Orthodox, incidentally). However, Anglicans were, and hence it surprises me that the NIV does not include the Apocrypha, as Anglicans use it (as do some Lutherans).--MarshallStack 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted?

A few years ago someone explained the reasoning behind the copyrighting of the NIV translation of the Bible, but I can no longer recall what it was. Does anyone have the reasoning for reserving the copyrights? --129.173.105.28 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably so someone couldn't republish the entire NIV bible under their own name & copyright. Joncnunn 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

New category

I'd love to see a new category added for criticisms (and responses to criticisms) regarding the NIV translation. Any takers? I'd give it a go myself but I'm a) happy with my NIV translation and b) not well-versed on the basis of criticisms. --JesusFreak Jn3:16 01:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll get people who criticise any translation (especially King James Only people), and no translation is going to keep everyone happy. In my church (Lutheran Missouri Synod), most of our liturgy is still based around the NIV, though we're adopting the ESV as our semi-official translation...however, I imagine a lot of people are still going to be using the NIV. My pastor prefers the NASB.--MarshallStack 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Textual Basis" and "Translation Type"

Those numbers are unsourced and unexplained. Where do they come from and what do they mean? Peter Ballard 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

One of the recent vandals inserted this link http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/13795-niv.html in the NIV entry he vandalized. I traced the IP to New York. In the post on the message board from Chad, Administrator of the website "Talk Jesus", who posted a long diatribe against the New International Version of the Bible, is in New York according to the location listed for him. Coincidence? I have no idea why adherents to the King James Version of the Bible continue to act this way. Knight1000 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Update and Overhaul

getting the broom and vacuum cleaner out

• Removed King James Bible propaganda

• Removed information and subject matter that seemed more like gossip belonging in a National Inquirer, some was pretty inflammatory and didn't have any references

• Removed information from infidels.org; quoting anything from infidels.org and expecting it to be unbaised is silly

• Removed information that the New International Version is tied with a conspiratorial homosexual agenda, this is beyond silly for anyone to even entertain this as substantive

• Discrepancy’s and problems with the codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, should go in those respective areas or another area. The NIV entry is not really a good place to air personal grips about codexs

• King James Onlyism debate information needs to go in its respective area, especially when the topics discussed have nothing to do with the NIV

• Added new information w/references

• Clean up the wording, article short and to the point, w00t!

Knight1000 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, and I'm glad a lot of that ridiculous KJV-only stuff is gone (if for no other reason than it belongs in an article on the KJV-only debate). But something about "evangelical bias" needs to go back in. I always thought that was a relatively widespread criticism of the NIV, and I've even noticed it myself FWIW. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"evangelical bias"? You will have to clue me in, I've never heard of that charge unless your referring to information from infidels.org. Knight1000 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Pete means that it changes the text to smooth over proposed contradictions, but that criticism is already there. (ApostleJoe (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Isaiah 7:14

Shouldn't there be some reference to the fact that the NIV was created partly in response to the "young woman" translation controversy in the NRSV/RSV?--Sailor Titan (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps true of the New American Standard Bible; but since the NASB was already in existence I doubt that was true of the NIV. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Barker

Why is Dan Barker the source for translation criticism? By his own admission he only has two years of undergraduate Greek to his name. Similarly, his criticism is simply in error.--Ari89 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Question moved from main

You refer to different manuscripts that are [perhaps more accurate under the section entitled criticisms. what are the names of these "superior" manuscripts" -- 216.190.69.62

I think the text is quite clear. The NIV New Testament is based on Nestle-Aland. Evercat (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality

A verse in Corinthians uses the word homosexuality although this term did not exist in any language unti 1869. Can someone put this in the criticisms page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.79.115 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Source? Basileias (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section tag was removed because there was "no discussion on talk page", which isn't correct. Looking at the sources many, and throughout the article, fail Wikipedia's WP:RS. The article as a whole needs clean up. Basileias (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Started some cleanup. A lot of references and links are broken or have changed. Basileias (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User StreamOfJustice creates an account @ 03:31 and then performs an odd edit @ 03:38. Basileias (talk)

criticisms

The criticism section uses these sources for it's criticisms.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Bible
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32644719/ns/us_news-faith/
• http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-
• http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/versions.html

I fail to see how most of these support the various criticisms cited. I would like to remove most of them and rename the the "criticism" section to "reception." The is the norm is most article when dealing with how something was received; like movies, books, etc. Basileias (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ref to the NET Bible is actually to the NET Bible, not merely the Wikipedia article on same. Evercat (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 vs 2010

biblegateway.com shows it as 2011 Smith03 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised Standard Version

An edit by user BlueMesa171 stating "the Revised Standard Version "a much better literary achievement and more worthy of acceptance as the standard media Bible," doesn't make any sense to add. The reason is the article is about the New International Version, not the Revised Standard Version, it also sounds opinionated. While I don't have issues with that statement in Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate in the Revised Standard Version article. Basileias (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over 2011 revision

A new section was recently added. The 3 sources provided are not neutral third party sources, especially cbmw.org. Some of the write up, "Most conservatives prefer a word for word translation..." isn't a sourced fact. Also the statement, "The Southern Baptist Convention...the largest evangelical denomination in the world..." seems like an advertisement for them. Trying to run through a few one sided sources to create a "2011 controversy" when it appears many "conservative groups," if you want to call them that, are largely fine with the recent NIV.

The SBC source stated this...

In an unusual move, messengers called to the floor and passed a resolution on the "gender-neutral 2011 New International Version" (NIV) that was not reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee.

I don't know what "unusual move" is supposed to mean and the statement "was not reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee" seems like we should wait for more information. Basileias (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unusual move" means that the resolution was brought to the convention from the floor rather than reported out of the resolutions committee, as is normally done. The last time this happened was 2002. The resolution passed almost unanimously. One should not consider this resolution any less authoritative than others. user:toverton28

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6491/53/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-reject-updated-niv-bible-51288/ http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1374070 http://www.realclearreligion.org/2011/06/17/southern_baptists_air_displeasure_with_the_new_niv_241989.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems mainly centered around what the SBC has done as most of these sources appear "Baptist," and I suspect Southern Baptist. I know the WELS Lutheran group has publicly said differently. The outstanding question would be, is it notable what the SBC has done on this. The original edit was written like a POV push with statements "controversy," "...the concept of gender-neutrality...," "Most conservatives prefer a word for word translation..." etc. Any future edits concerning this topic need to be written from a Neutral point of view.

It appears the SBC has called the NIV "Gender-Neutral." This is rather odd because I think of "gender-neutral" as "not associated with gender." Searching the new version of the NIV for the word "man" on bible gateway produced a result of 1,989 hits. I am concerned about the sources per WP:RS. Basileias (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After Toverton28's reinsert

Toverton28, when someone removes and edit and takes the issue to the talk page you are supposed to reach a consensus here first before you go reinserting the original edit. Your edition is not encyclopedic and I am raising a question about even the notability of it. Basileias (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to address your concerns in the changes there were made. This was not a simple reinsert but a new post attempting to address your concerns. Focus on the Family is not a Baptist organization, yet it is also critical of the gender neutral changes. "Most" was changed to "Some". I even linked a British article to show that this issue is notable. The Washington Times is also linked. Realclearreligion.org ran a story on the Southern Baptist resolution. Gender-neutral does not mean all reference to gender are eliminated, but that many male references in the original language are. . . such as "I will make you fish for people" instead of "I will make you fishers of men". The original Greek says "men". See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367570/New-Bible-translation-causes-controversy-addition-women-gender-neutral-language.html Please let me know if you have additional concerns. Thank you.

Here is the updated post that I would like to see placed on the NIV page. I believe many wiki readers would like to know this information.

Controversy over 2011 revision

In 2011 Zondervan changed the translation philosophy of the NIV to incorporate the concept of gender-neutrality. When the original language says "brothers", the 2011 NIV often translates the English into "brothers and sisters". Some conservative scholars, who believe every single word of the Bible is inspired by God, have been critical of these changes. Many conservatives prefer a word for word translation of the original language rather than a thought for thought translation, which inserts more of the translators personal theology into the English text. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published articles critical of the gender-neutral changes. The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest evangelical denomination in the United States, passed a resolution calling the 2011 NIV an "inaccurate translation". Focus on the Family has also failed to recommend the updated version of the NIV. The criticisms effect on NIV Bible sales remains to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This does not address my concerns. Translation issues and debates are common and definitely not exclusive to the NIV. I also noticed you had a warning about original research on your talk page from another editor, which you have now removed. Basileias (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat new to wiki, though not a total novice. Removing the original research link is not an attempt to hide something. I always remove talk after the issues have been settled. This keeps things from getting cluttered (Btw, someone else came and made similar points on the page you mention). If you check my history I have cleaned up my cluttered page many times before. Am I not suppose to do this? You are correct that translation issues and debates are common, but translations being labled as "inaccurate" are very rare. CBMW, Southern Baptists, and Focus on the Family have all been critical of the revised 2011 NIV. The SBC and Focus on the Family are major evangelical groups. CBMW is a non-Baptist group that is made up of many evangelical scholars. All their criticism combined will have a large effect on NIV sales. This is very notable in my opinion. I simply ask that wiki readers be aware of the controversy.--Toverton28 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to your question "Am I not suppose to do this?" I do not remove mine and most editors do not, unless they are archiving old discussion.

A translation being labeled as "inaccurate" is pretty common. Every translation in existence has been labeled inaccurate by someone. The CBMW has been rejected in quite a few articles as a neutral and reliable source. The reason is they have a vested interest in the promotion of their issues. You stated "All their criticism combined will have a large effect on NIV sales," since the NIV is still #1, that remains to be seen.

You seem to be assuming that since there is the usual translation debate in Christian circles, that there exists a big controversy that is unique. I really do not think there is. I am not opposed to covering something, but I do not think what you have presented has risen to a notable level. I would like to see input from other editors.

Just an FYI, the SBC passes resolutions on everything from immigration to including oil spills. I am not convinced what they do is notable. Basileias (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of sources provided, I think that at least some mention of this issue, perhaps shorter than what is presented here, would not be unreasonable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a mention in "Reception" is reasonable and I would be willing to work on something. However Toverton28 has been trying to generate criticism I think for the sake of just generating it and then exaggerating it. He has been caught Canvassing over issues very similar here under 'Merger proposal.' Basileias (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with you taking the lead on this. I simply want the issue reported in some way, shape, or fashion. Thank you.--Toverton28 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I want to give other editors a chance to give thought and maybe submit another source(s) we may not know about. Basileias (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)