Changes in the 2010 NIV

[Mike]

Reading the translation notes from the committee for the NIV, there's a note about one of the reasons for the changes. Aside from "progress in scholarship" and "concern for clarity", they cite "changes in English". Here are the first few examples they use in keeping up with the changes in the English language:

1. Changes in English. For example:
• Who would have guessed in the 1970s that, within a few decades, an ‟alien†would mean,
thanks to the influence of ET and other movies and TV shows, an ‟extraterrestrial beingâ€?
In the updated NIV, ‟alien†has been replaced with ‟foreigner†or similar words in order to
communicate the intention of God’s Word accurately to contemporary English readers.
See, for instance, Genesis 23:4: ‟I am a foreigner and stranger among you . . . â€
• ‟Ankle chains†refer much more often to prison manacles than to the type of personal
adornments described in Isaiah 3:20. The modern fashion of wearing jewelry around the
ankle has led to the widespread use of the word ‟anklet†to describe this piece of jewelry,
and this is the word used in the updated NIV.

http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf

So here's a question. Do you believe it's better to have a translation that describes the subject more accurately in our modern language to get the intent of the writer that is more applicable to us in 2010, or should we stick to direct translations of the words and be forced to learn what the writers meant? I've always been an NIV reader, so my response is self-evident. I would rather read a verse and understand what it's saying, but I can see the opposing POV. One little thing that irks me about this 2010 version is the way this changes scripture memorization. Now, there's new verbiage in some areas, and it's going to make something that doesn't come easy for me even more difficult.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I'd go for easy-to-understand over literal any day of the week. I'm an NCV fan myself, so I'm obviously a big fan of the easy-to-read Bible translations. I think part of fulfilling The Great Commission is making the Word of God understandable to those who reach for it.

 

[theLords]

I hear you about the memorizing Scripture aspect! I memorized KJV Bible verses so when I quote the Bible it's usually "-ths, thous, and dost"

I think clarifying the English Bible is no problem at all. I once remember hearing an account of missionaries in the far reaches of Africa. They were translating the Bible into some specific African language. They came to this verse:

Isaiah 1:18
New International Version (©1984)
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

And realized that there was no word for "snow" in the tribe's language. So they translated the verse: "they shall be white as a coconut."

The heart of the Lord's Word has not been changed or defiled, and those remote African people are blessed in having knowledge of the Scripture, that God will make their sins pure white because of His love and forgiveness.

 

[Mike]

So they translated the verse: "they shall be white as a coconut."

:rolling

 

[Nick]

Reading the translation notes from the committee for the NIV, there's a note about one of the reasons for the changes. Aside from "progress in scholarship" and "concern for clarity", they cite "changes in English". Here are the first few examples they use in keeping up with the changes in the English language:

1. Changes in English. For example:
• Who would have guessed in the 1970s that, within a few decades, an ‟alien†would mean,
thanks to the influence of ET and other movies and TV shows, an ‟extraterrestrial beingâ€?
In the updated NIV, ‟alien†has been replaced with ‟foreigner†or similar words in order to
communicate the intention of God’s Word accurately to contemporary English readers.
See, for instance, Genesis 23:4: ‟I am a foreigner and stranger among you . . . â€
• ‟Ankle chains†refer much more often to prison manacles than to the type of personal
adornments described in Isaiah 3:20. The modern fashion of wearing jewelry around the
ankle has led to the widespread use of the word ‟anklet†to describe this piece of jewelry,
and this is the word used in the updated NIV.

http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf

So here's a question. Do you believe it's better to have a translation that describes the subject more accurately in our modern language to get the intent of the writer that is more applicable to us in 2010, or should we stick to direct translations of the words and be forced to learn what the writers meant? I've always been an NIV reader, so my response is self-evident. I would rather read a verse and understand what it's saying, but I can see the opposing POV. One little thing that irks me about this 2010 version is the way this changes scripture memorization. Now, there's new verbiage in some areas, and it's going to make something that doesn't come easy for me even more difficult.

I agree Mike, and this is annoying. I might use the ESV from now on, since iti seems more stable. However I do see why they changed "alien" to "foreigner" and if it makes more sense then ok.

But what is really bugging me about the 2010 NIV is the followng, that I learned off another Christian forum, on asking about the new, "gender inclusive" 2010 NIV:

"Gender-inclusive" means that where the original manuscripts say "man", or something specific to a gender, if it is thought that both genders are included, the wording is changed accordingly. It isn't something a translation should engage in, purely for textual accuracy and translational honesty.

:gah

 

[theLords]

Using the male pronoun when referencing male and female is grammatically correct!

 

[jasoncran]

you know, that is what the ole h.s. is for. i mean that is how i learned the bible. yes i understand the need for easy to understand english but this is ridiculous.

i mean what happened to pastors actually being able to expound on the word

i know a old woman pastor of my old chruch who cant speak well in the kjv but the Lord uses her to teach.

she didnt graduate high school. Just read the bible and prayed and preaches.

i mean if in doubt ask the lord and also look online.

 

[Mike]

But what is really bugging me about the 2010 NIV is the followng, that I learned off another Christian forum, on asking about the new, "gender inclusive" 2010 NIV:

:gah

Agree and disagree. In church today, the pastor was up on the altar with his iPad (yes, iPad).

View attachment 1715

But, I digress.

He was reading Isaiah 7 and got to verse 13. I was reading along with my NIV '84 Bible (I guess I'll have to start including the year :gah ), and I read along "Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men?" But he didn't say "men". He said "humans", and I was like "wha... wha... what did he say?" Then it occurred to me, he's probably using the new version. So I pulled a no-no. I pulled out my blackberry (on silent) and brought up the verse on (thank you, Lewis!) youversion and switched it to the 2010 version. And there it was - "humans". If anyone saw me, they were probably as put off by me pulling my blackberry out as I was when I realized what was happening. But I was very put off, and had to act.

On the other hand, if the verse is speaking to "men and women", I suppose I can see this change. It will definitely take some getting used to.

 

[jasoncran]

i see this a nothing but political correctness combined with the the ignorance of basic english.

does anyone recall the the mailmen being switched to mailperson(and the post office calls them mailperson)?

why pc. its meant to be both male and female inclusive.

sheessh next thing ya know

this will change for the the spanish niv as well and not use the gendered nouns
ie las manos(hands are considered female even though they end os as opposes to as and have the the plural gendered article of a female)

 

[Mike]

I don't see this being a case of "political correctness". They are trying to say more clearly what the writers were saying. That's not the same thing. You can disagree with them doing it, but I don't think it's for the purpose that you say.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't see this being a case of "political correctness". They are trying to say more clearly what the writers were saying. That's not the same thing. You can disagree with them doing it, but I don't think it's for the purpose that you say.

mike, i dont know.i mean english has always had the idea of gendered neutral nouns that meant all

such as one

When one is angry one sins. Is that not in third person and they still teach essay writing in third person and i had to use one instead of you.

so i dont have a problem with that verse in isiah even before my college english.

 

[westtexas]

He was reading Isaiah 7 and got to verse 13. I was reading along with my NIV '84 Bible (I guess I'll have to start including the year :gah ), and I read along "Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men?" But he didn't say "men". He said "humans", and I was like "wha... wha... what did he say?"

Is this not from the 2002 version of the TNIV? It was my understanding that this version was the one that was gender-inclusive and that the 2010 version of the NIV was going to attempt to revert back to mankind, man, etc. I don't really care for the NIV though, so I'm not really sure. I was thinking that I read that in an article somewhere, and then again, maybe not.
Westtexas

 

[Mike]

mike, i dont know.i mean english has always had the idea of gendered neutral nouns that meant all

such as one

When one is angry one sins. Is that not in third person and they still teach essay writing in third person and i had to use one instead of you.

so i dont have a problem with that verse in isiah even before my college english.

Personally, I've never had difficulty interpreting "men" as being humankind when it's meant to, but some could. I'd prefer it was kept "men", but if it will help others, I see value with it. Either way, this isn't the same as the postal service avoiding controversy by changing the title of their carriers. I'm all but positive that the NIV committee did NOT make these changes to appease female readers.

If we could, I'd like to get back to the OP lest we get off on a "political correctness" discussion.

 

[jasoncran]

ok and that last post wasnt about pc but how we in america have lowered the bar on english speaking skills.

for me it makes no difference as i wont use the niv. i will stick to the old kjv as i'm comfortable with it.

 

[Mike]

Is this not from the 2002 version of the TNIV? It was my understanding that this version was the one that was gender-inclusive and that the 2010 version of the NIV was going to attempt to revert back to mankind, man, etc. I don't really care for the NIV though, so I'm not really sure. I was thinking that I read that in an article somewhere, and then again, maybe not.
Westtexas

NIV '84 "Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men?
TNIV "Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of human beings?"
NIV 2010 "Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans?"

I guess I'm not clear on what you're saying WT.

Here are a few more examples they give of "updated English":

• In Exodus 4:14 Aaron’s ‟heart will be glad when he sees†Moses, but today we would just
render this Semitic idiom as ‟he will be glad to see you†— as the updated NIV does.
• And how many readers today would use the word ‟overweening†in a sentence, much less
be able to define it? Moab’s ‟overweening pride†in Isaiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:29 has
therefore now become her ‟great . . . arrogance.â

 

[Lewis]

Go here and take your pick.

is the niv bible corrupt - Google Search

 

[Nick]

I don't see this being a case of "political correctness". They are trying to say more clearly what the writers were saying. That's not the same thing. You can disagree with them doing it, but I don't think it's for the purpose that you say.

Personally, I've never had difficulty interpreting "men" as being humankind when it's meant to, but some could. I'd prefer it was kept "men", but if it will help others, I see value with it. Either way, this isn't the same as the postal service avoiding controversy by changing the title of their carriers. I'm all but positive that the NIV committee did NOT make these changes to appease female readers.

If we could, I'd like to get back to the OP lest we get off on a "political correctness" discussion.

I agree Mike. I don't think it's the translators being PC, but trying to convey the meaning better. I've got used to discerning when it means a male and when it means humankind. I find it annoying more than anything else.