Hopefully many, if not all, are aware of the newly published NIV2011. It was available on the web at near the end of 2010, but only became available in print as of March 2011.

Yesterday, I received my print copy of the NIV2011. I’m a little behind because 1) I might not even find a printed copy of this version in Belgium for a little longer and 2) the NIV2011 was not released in the closest English speaking country (the UK) until May. Hence the delay for me.

I’ve engaged with the new NIV text a little bit via the internet and via my iPad. But I am now thinking this may become my main text for now.

I have read a few passages in the new NIV since receiving it – from where I have been in my own devotions (Song of Songs) and where I am going in my preaching-teaching with Cornerstone (1 Corinthians 12-14). But that’s about it (outside Hebrews 4, Psalm 1 and possibly a few others).

The theologian in me wants to run and compare the text with the ESV (the main Bible text I have read and study from for the past 5 years). But time fails me presently, as I have other priorities with the church and I am moving house this coming weekend. So we will have to wait and see how I feel about some translations of the text in future weeks and months.

I know some have had problems with the previously released TNIV in 2005. I think some of it probably revolved around the inclusive gender language. Thus, I think the NIV2011 project was undertaken to improve on some of the criticisms of the TNIV. Nonetheless, the inclusive gender language is still there. I, for one, don’t have a problem with it.

Also, I don’t know if it would be the same for you, but when I get a new copy of a Bible, it actually stirs in me a desire to read and study it more. One is to see the differences that exist between the version(s) you are more familiar with, but also to ‘eat this book’, as Eugene Peterson would say.

For those who read this article, I’d love your feedback on the NIV2011 if you have been able to read it much.

9 thoughts on “NIV2011

  1. Unfortunately, the NIV translation team lost much of my trust with some of their previous efforts. Not sure whether I would return to it now, mainly because they have flipped and flopped about their position on gender-inclusive language. Rescinding some of the blatant mistranslations previously included in the TNIV is very welcome but the fact that the translation committee allowed them in the first place is a matter of concern.

    However, I would be very interested to hear about your own experiences with this updated version particularly since the original NIV was groundbreaking and made a huge impact.

  2. Hugh –

    I have no problem with gender inclusive language in the first place. I have egalitarian leanings.

    My main problem with the NIV 1984 was that it did not seem to distinguish well between the sinful nature and flesh, almost seeing as one the old sinful nature with the current flesh we still have in this age. But I am not so bothered by this any more. I need to read Romans 6-8 in the NIV2011, though.

  3. The TNIV won me over after listening to Gordon Fee speak on the translation issues. The NIV 2011 has only solidified my commitment to the NIV. (Coming out of college I was a NASB guy and hated the NIV, so this is big for me.)

    First of all, the NIV reads better publicly. I tried the ESV and the TNIV. The TNIV was far and away the easier to read for anyone on the schedule for public reading on a given Sunday.

    Second of all, each update, from the TNIV to NIV 2011 has become more “formal”, which I prefer personally. For the first time ever, they are using “flesh” over “sinful nature” in much of Paul’s writings.

    Third, they have continued to clean up small spots that were difficult for me personally in the NIV. I discover new ones all the time. One small example was going to “Advocate” in John 14 and John 16 and making it clearer in 1 John 2 that “Advocate” was the better word to use. Small things like that really boosted my confidence level in this translation. IF ONLY they had taken the additional step to do the Apocrypha… But that has never been their objective, so I understand.

  4. Dan –

    Second of all, each update, from the TNIV to NIV 2011 has become more “formal”, which I prefer personally. For the first time ever, they are using “flesh” over “sinful nature” in much of Paul’s writings.

    In my arrogance, that is what initially led me to not like the NIV 1984 version. I have softened my dogmatism now.

    Coming out of college, I, too, was an NASB-er.

  5. I have been using the NIV as my primary, but not exclusive, translation, since it came out in 1978. Up until then it had been the KJV and the LB for awhile. I have ‘moved up’ to each revision (1984, TNIV, and now NIV2011). For a general reading Bible, both private and public, I don’t think you can do better. For word study and general original language structure, I have used the NASB starting in 1978 also. It’s still great for that.

  6. Pingback: Too Cautious For Our Own Good | The Prodigal Thought

  7. Pingback: Review of NIV2011 | The Prodigal Thought

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s