NIV 2011 quick observations
The term “flesh” has replaced “sinful/human nature” in quite a bit a places. Good/bad??? I think that it certainly will make the literalist happier. Search for “flesh” and narrow it down to Pauline Epistles. The TNIV is no longer available since the NIV 2011 replaces both NIV and TNIV. However if you would like an on-line version it is still accessible at Biblica.com
There is also a video introduction by Douglas Moo and some translator notes as well
Another interesting change is to Hebrews chapter 2:6b from the TNIV. The TNIV caused a quite the stir when it released this one:
…”What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
where as the NIV 2011 reads:
…“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
Feel free to post more interesting findings in the comments, or reactions to the NIV 2011 as well.
The translators PDF notes is very good, make sure you read that over. Here is a snippet of what they have to say about the term “flesh”
That is different from both NIV and TNIV
A few things to be aware of. I was looking at 1 Thess 5:19-21, but when I first did the search I simply searched as “1 Thess 5″ I just wanted to glance through the whole chapter. I got to the verse that I wanted to review and it read like this:
I thought bummer, they went back to the NIV, and chose to ignore the TNIV’s rendering of
Then I refined my search in Biblegateway and entered in “1 Thess 5:19-21″ and got this:
exactly the same as the TNIV.
So make sure you enter in the exact verses you want to compare, otherwise you might get the old NIV.
This is one of the reasons why I didn’t necessarily like the NIV. I think that it is probable to distinguish between the ‘sinful nature’ and the ‘flesh’. The sinful nature is what has died and been crucified in the believer. But the flesh is that which is still with the believer in this age. Thus, we are the righteous saints in Christ (and, thus, not sinners). But we have the flesh which we crucify daily. That is how I understand it.
Scott, well now you have a reason to reconsider the NIV 2011
I hope that you find more!
Robert -
No, it seems to be in the same vein where they equate the two (‘sinful nature’ and ‘flesh’). I think they are distinguishable. So not sure I will like that part of the translation.
Here is a short video on the update.
not sure about the Hebrews 2:6b verse – what do you think is the reason for the change?
Either way, I don’t care for the translation in Heb 2:6 of ‘mortals’ or ‘mankind’ for the singular ‘man’. I’ve no doubt that this was the intention of the MT in Ps 8, but here in Hebrews, especially given the christological emphasis of chapter 1, it predetermines that the passage can only be interpreted anthropologically. However, ‘man’ certainly provides enough ambiguity for us to ask whether the writer of Hebrews intended either a christological reading or was employing something of a double entendre – one which permitted both readings to be held together. So, yuck! Perhaps it’s not surprising though, given that Craig Blomberg has argued so forcefully for a solely anthropological reading of this passage. I like Blomberg, but I’m not persuaded here that we can definitely rule out the christological reference.
On the return of ‘flesh’ for sarx, I’m definitely in favour of that. ‘Sinful nature’ is much too restrictive, while ‘flesh’ allows for more nuance and additional resonances.
Should have added, it is very interesting that ‘son of man’ has replaced ‘human beings’ in the new NIV. I wonder was there some pressure for a christological reading of ‘son of man’ to be glimpsed by the English-only readers? Don’t know, from I’ve gathered so far, I’ll probably stick with NRSV and TNIV as my go to English renderings. Though, I’ll be giving the CEB a good read as well when it is published.
Jonathan, I don’t have enough Greek under my belt to argue either way, but I do know that passage was one that bugged people.
My criteria for which bible I used is based on a overall perspective. Which translation can be best used for teaching, preaching, reading and which will be a translation that most people in my church would read and understand. For me this narrows it down to NIV 2011 (TNIV), HCSB, NET, and maybe the NLT. I do use the NLT when teaching New Believer courses and encourage them to buy one. In my more advance bible courses I encourage them to own at least 3 translations TNIV, HCSB, NLT, and if they like the ESV. But I am confident with the HCSB that it is a good enough substitute for the ESV so I don’t make it required, but do suggest that they own one. I hardly recommend the NET bible just because it’s not carried at most Christian bookstores and it is not a common translation used by most churches.
I really like the TNIV, so more than likely I will switch to the NIV 2011 as my primary bible, and will continue to use and read the HCSB (I like this translation as well, maybe it just how well it reads and flows for the most part). I’m glad to see that for the most part the TNIV and NIV 2011 are extremely similar so that is good because I can continue using my TNIV Renaissance Bible. I’ll make notes along the way where the NIV 2011 supersedes it.
Hi Robert,
Yes, I’d want something like the TNIV for public use too. I quite like it and often use it for my own daily devotions. Funnily enough, I’ve never used HCSB or NLT though I’ve heard good things about both.
Jonathan, I enjoy all 3 translations I think that they complement each other very well. I am glad that they revised the NIV, and that it contains much of the TNIV. The main reason being is that I could not find a fine leather thin line, large print version of the TNIV. I would love to have a calf skin leather thin line NIV 2011 to preach/teach from. My guess is that there will be plenty to chose from come next year.
Hi – I left this comment on an earlier post here, but perhaps this one has more readers:
I thought you and your readers might find it useful to know that I’ve just put up some pages that show how similar the NIV2011 is to the NIV1984 and the TNIV. My pages also show each verse where the NIV2011 differs from the NIV1984 or the TNIV in an easily read / clear manner.
The pages are online @ http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/
I’d appreciate any comments or suggestions if anyone has any. Please either email me robert@slowley.com or leave a comment on my blog post http://community.livejournal.com/robhu_bible/4977.html
Thank you,
-RobHu
One of the translation choices of the NIV/TNIV that has always puzzled me is the choice to remove the idea that the children of Israel grew in both number and strength during their captivity in Egypt. This is reflected in every major translation except those in the NIV family and the NIV’s translation of the text seems to represent nothing more than a commentators bias. The text seems to very clearly contrast both number and strength. I do not believe there is any justification for translating ‘ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ אתם’ as “the because so ?numerous? ?THAT? the land was filled with them”
Ex. 1:7 (1:9 is also translated in similar fashion).
ובני ישׂראל פרו וישׁרצו וירבו ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ אתם
TNIV Exodus 1:7 but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.
NIV Exodus 1:7 but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.
NIV2011 but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.
As compared to other English versions:
ESV Exodus 1:7 But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.
KJV Exodus 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
NAU Exodus 1:7 But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them.
NET Exodus 1:7 The Israelites, however, were fruitful, increased greatly, multiplied, and became extremely strong, so that the land was filled with them.
NKJ Exodus 1:7 But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.
NLT Exodus 1:7 But their descendants, the Israelites, had many children and grandchildren. In fact, they multiplied so greatly that they became extremely powerful and filled the land.
NRS Exodus 1:7 But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.
Today I was looking through the page that listed the translation team for the updated NIV. When I noticed that David-Instone Brewer was on the translation team, I decided to see how the NT passages on divorce had been translated. I am very uncomfortable with the translation of Mt. 5:32. While I do believe a good argument can be made that supports the idea that the woman was victimized, that is not what the text says and those kinds of comments should be left as a marginal note or (better yet) in a side box commentary. These kinds of emendations do not belong in the text!
NIV2011 Matthew 5:32 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
NIV Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
TNIV Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.