I have used the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible for over 28 years. I also use other versions like the NASB, but I prefer the NIV for reading, teaching, and preaching. When I have questions, I go to the original Hebrew or Greek, and also check other translations.
The American Family News Network recently reported that The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has voted "not to commend" the 2011 NIV Bible, because of its usage of gender-neutral language. The SBC argued at their annual gathering in Phoenix that the changes in the 2011 NIV update alter the Bible's theological message.
I am not a Southern Baptist, but I understand and share their concerns. They do not want anyone altering the original meaning of Scripture, and neither do I.
All Scripture is Inspired and Inerrant
Every translation has its weaknesses and strengths. I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in its inerrancy, but these existed in the original manuscripts, known as autographs. The apostle Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17). I absolutely agree with that. I believe God had preserved all His Words, every single one of them.
But I would not say that every word in each of the modern translations is necessarily inspired or inerrant. To say that the copies of the original manuscripts were inspired and without error, and that a particular translation is inspired or inerrant is to (in my opinion) go beyond what Paul meant in 2 Tim 3:16. That would deny the known imperfections found in some copies of manuscripts, as well as in modern translations alike.
I still think that many of our modern English translations like the NASB are very good and give a faithful rendering of the original meaning in our modern language. I think they are solid and reliable. I do prefer the ones that were translated by diverse teams of scholars, rather than by individuals. And I prefer those that attempt to synthesize the various texts in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), rather than translate from a single source.
Unfortunate Changes to the NIV
I don't agree with all of the changes made by the NIV committee. For example, I am not in favor of the gender-neutral language in the 2011 update. I personally would not buy a copy of the 2011 edition for myself or anyone else. I prefer the expression "man of God" to "servant of God." Just to make sure I was not being partial, I checked with my wife, and she felt that "man of God" is more specific; whereas "servant of God" blurs the meaning a bit.
I also wish they had kept the term "saints," and not replaced it with phrases like "the Lord's people." But I am not on the committee, and I am sure they could not possibly please everyone. Their goal was not to please people. It was to render the original meaning of Scripture with terms and expressions that are used today.
Response of the NIV Translation Committee
Please have a look at the document the committee produced about the new NIV update, before you pass judgment. They highlight many of the changes and the reasons for those changes.
I think there are some revisions you may like. You might also watch the very brief executive summary on the NIV update by Dr. Moo, the chairman of the translation committee. He stated that 95% of the previous NIV translation has been preserved in the 2011 version.
The committee has also posted a brief response to the Southern Baptist Convention, which is excellent. Additionally, they have posted a very good response to the recent review of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). If you really want to understand the heart of the NIV translation committee, you need to check out these brief documents.
The NIV Translation Committee is made up of scholars from various evangelical denominations, some of which are egalitarian and others complimentarian. Although I am a complimentarian, I respect the diversity of the committee members. I believe they are guided by their philosophy of translation to preserve the original meaning of Scripture, not by a more narrow purpose, such as the stated agenda of the CBMW.
Ungodly Agenda?
Some people have gone so far as to say that the NIV translation committee has an "ungodly agenda." Is this true?
First of all, it should be noted that the NIV was published by Zondervan, which is now owned by Harper Collins, the largest publisher in the world. Harper Collins has published many evil books like the satanic Bible. Moreover, the NIV has removed to the footnotes scores of verses from the Bible like Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; and Acts 8:37. In fact, 21 out of 54 words in the Lord's Prayer recorded in Luke 11:2-4 have been removed and placed in the footnotes. That's 38% of the prayer! I could write an article about that. In no way am I saying the NIV is perfect. However, it is worth noting that all the verses cited above have been removed to the footnotes since the 1978 version was published, which was long before Zondervan was acquired by Harper Collins.
I am not a Southern Baptist, but I understand and share their concerns. They do not want anyone altering the original meaning of Scripture, and neither do I.
All Scripture is Inspired and Inerrant
Every translation has its weaknesses and strengths. I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in its inerrancy, but these existed in the original manuscripts, known as autographs. The apostle Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17). I absolutely agree with that. I believe God had preserved all His Words, every single one of them.
But I would not say that every word in each of the modern translations is necessarily inspired or inerrant. To say that the copies of the original manuscripts were inspired and without error, and that a particular translation is inspired or inerrant is to (in my opinion) go beyond what Paul meant in 2 Tim 3:16. That would deny the known imperfections found in some copies of manuscripts, as well as in modern translations alike.
I still think that many of our modern English translations like the NASB are very good and give a faithful rendering of the original meaning in our modern language. I think they are solid and reliable. I do prefer the ones that were translated by diverse teams of scholars, rather than by individuals. And I prefer those that attempt to synthesize the various texts in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), rather than translate from a single source.
Unfortunate Changes to the NIV
I don't agree with all of the changes made by the NIV committee. For example, I am not in favor of the gender-neutral language in the 2011 update. I personally would not buy a copy of the 2011 edition for myself or anyone else. I prefer the expression "man of God" to "servant of God." Just to make sure I was not being partial, I checked with my wife, and she felt that "man of God" is more specific; whereas "servant of God" blurs the meaning a bit.
I also wish they had kept the term "saints," and not replaced it with phrases like "the Lord's people." But I am not on the committee, and I am sure they could not possibly please everyone. Their goal was not to please people. It was to render the original meaning of Scripture with terms and expressions that are used today.
Response of the NIV Translation Committee
Please have a look at the document the committee produced about the new NIV update, before you pass judgment. They highlight many of the changes and the reasons for those changes.
I think there are some revisions you may like. You might also watch the very brief executive summary on the NIV update by Dr. Moo, the chairman of the translation committee. He stated that 95% of the previous NIV translation has been preserved in the 2011 version.
The committee has also posted a brief response to the Southern Baptist Convention, which is excellent. Additionally, they have posted a very good response to the recent review of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). If you really want to understand the heart of the NIV translation committee, you need to check out these brief documents.
The NIV Translation Committee is made up of scholars from various evangelical denominations, some of which are egalitarian and others complimentarian. Although I am a complimentarian, I respect the diversity of the committee members. I believe they are guided by their philosophy of translation to preserve the original meaning of Scripture, not by a more narrow purpose, such as the stated agenda of the CBMW.
Ungodly Agenda?
Some people have gone so far as to say that the NIV translation committee has an "ungodly agenda." Is this true?
First of all, it should be noted that the NIV was published by Zondervan, which is now owned by Harper Collins, the largest publisher in the world. Harper Collins has published many evil books like the satanic Bible. Moreover, the NIV has removed to the footnotes scores of verses from the Bible like Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; and Acts 8:37. In fact, 21 out of 54 words in the Lord's Prayer recorded in Luke 11:2-4 have been removed and placed in the footnotes. That's 38% of the prayer! I could write an article about that. In no way am I saying the NIV is perfect. However, it is worth noting that all the verses cited above have been removed to the footnotes since the 1978 version was published, which was long before Zondervan was acquired by Harper Collins.
Regarding the use of gender neutral terms in the 2011 version, I can say with absolute certainty that it grossly violates the rules of English grammar. It is grammatically incorrect to use a plural pronoun like "they" when referring to a singular subject noun like the following examples from the NIV 2011:
1Co 14:13, NIV 2011: "For this reason the one (singular) who speaks (singular) in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they (plural) say (plural)."
In order to be grammatically correct, it should say, "For this reason he who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says."
Gal_6:4, NIV 2011: "Each one (singular) should test their (plural) own actions. Then they (plural) can take pride in themselves (plural) alone, without comparing themselves (plural) to someone else..."
In order to be grammatically correct, it should say, "Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself alone, without comparing himself to someone else..."
Otherwise it makes no sense the way the NIV 2011 is now written. And there are many other such examples in the NIV 2011 like the following:
Mar 2:22, NIV 2011: "And no one (singular) pours (singular) new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they (plural) pour (plural) new wine into new wineskins."
Mar 9:42, NIV 2011: "If anyone (singular) causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them (plural) if a large millstone were hung around their (plural) neck (singular) and they (plural) were thrown into the sea."
In the example above from Mark 9:42, you can see that the revised wording refers to the singular "anyone" with the plural pronouns "they" and "their", and it also incorrectly refers to the pronoun as having a singular neck when it states "their neck". Multiple people cannot possess one neck, so it would have to say "their necks", but then it would still not agree with the singular subject "anyone".
Luk 5:39, NIV 2011: "And no one (singular) after drinking old wine wants the new, for they (plural) say, 'The old is better.'"
Luk 8:16, NIV 2011: "No one (singular) lights (singular) a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they (plural) put (plural) it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light."
Luk 19:26, NIV 2011: "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone (singular) who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they (plural) have will be taken away."
Joh 3:3, NIV 2011: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one (singular) can see the kingdom of God unless they (plural) are (plural) born again.'"
Joh 3:5, NIV 2011: "Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one (singular) can enter the kingdom of God unless they (plural) are (plural) born of water and the Spirit."
Joh 3:18, NIV 2011: "Whoever (singular) believes (singular) in him is not condemned, but whoever (singular) does not believe (singular) stands (singular) condemned already because they (plural) have (plural) not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Rev 2:11, NIV 2011: "Whoever (singular) has (singular) ears, let them (plural) hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death."
Rev 3:12, NIV 2011: "The one (singular) who is (singular) victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they (plural) leave it. I will write on them (plural) the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them (plural) my new name."
Sadly there are countless other such examples.
Consider that whenever a Bible translation is produced, after the translators finish their work, an English literary expert ensures -- among other things -- that proper syntax and grammar are used. Now consider how the NIV 2011 required one ore more such experts to go through the entire Bible that was already correct with regard to grammar and syntax, and alter it completely so that it violates the rules of English grammar throughout. In my opinion, this would have been necessary in order to obtain the resulting NIV 2011 translation, which is unconscionable. Imagine someone using all their knowledge and expertise in the English language that they have attained in college to produce a literary piece that completely violates what is grammatically correct and doesn't even flow naturally? What a waste and misuse of all that knowledge!
And the problem is not only that it breaks the rules of grammar, but it changes the meaning of the text. Take for example, the following passage:
Heb 2:6-8, NIV 2011: "But there is a place where someone has testified: 'What is mankind (singular) that you are mindful of them (plural), a son of man that you care for him? (7) You made them (plural) a little lower than the angels; you crowned them (plural) with glory and honor (8) and put everything under their (plural) feet.' In putting everything under them (plural), God left nothing that is not subject to them (plural). Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them (plural)."
Heb 2:6-8, NIV 1978 correctly states: "But there is a place where someone has testified: 'What is man (singular) that you are mindful of him (singular), the son of man that you care for him (singular)? (7) You made him (singular) a little lower than the angels; you crowned him (singular) with glory and honor (8) and put everything under His (singular) feet.' In putting everything under Him (singular), God left nothing that is not subject to Him (singular). Yet at present we do not see everything subject to Him (singular)."
There are multiple problems with the 2011 version of the passage above from Hebrews 2:6-8:
1. The apostle was quoting Psalm 8:4-6 to refer to Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, who was made a little lower than the angels during his earthly human life. This is obvious from the context. For example, in the verse right before this, the apostle continues with the theme of chapter one, which was to provide that Jesus is God and is greater than the angels. He states in Heb 2:5, "It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking." So it is clear that he means to say that the passage he quoted from Psalms 8:4-6 is about Jesus, to whom God has subjected the world to come.
2. The apostle was clearly not referring to mankind in general for all the reasons stated in my first point above. Yet the NIV 2011 in its relentless mission to purge all references to men from the Bible, wherever possible, goes so far as to change the meaning of this passage to make it seem to be about mankind in general.
3. This results in the NIV 2011 saying that God has put all things under the feet of mankind in general, which is clearly not what the passage is supposed to say in its proper context. It is all about Christ, as is the entire passage from Hebrews 1:1 through 3:6. I see this as a gross and inexcusable violation on the part of the NIV publishers, not only of the rules of English grammar, but of translation and of biblical hermeneutics.
It is for this reason that I sincerely believe there was an obvious agenda on the part of the NIV publishers to purge the Bible as much as possible of all references to the male gender, whenever the passage is about people in general, and they did so, even to the point of perverting the text to say something it was never meant to say. In its current form, the text contains heresy.
"Human Being" or "Human" Has Replaced "Man"
Another thing the NIV Committee did was to replace the word "man" with the expressions like "human(s)" "human being(s)", "human race", or some similar term in around 217 instances in the 2011 version. Yet this is not the way we speak in normal parlance. The use of the expression "human being" or "humans" is actually rather rare in common speech or writing, and sounds strange when used in the manner the NIV 2011 uses it. Here are some examples:
Gen 6:1, NIV 2011: "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them"
Gen 6:6, NIV 2011: "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."
Gen 9:6, NIV 2011: "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
Jas 3:8, NIV 2011: "but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
Jas 3:8, NIV 1978: "but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
Jas 5:17, NIV 2011: "Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years."
Jas 5:17, NIV 1978: "Elijah was a man, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years."
They could not even acknowledge in the 2011 version that Elijah was a man, and they had to change it to say he was a human being. That is very strange. Let me give you some more examples, which show how ridiculous this sounds:
Act 5:29, NIV 2011: "Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!"
Psa 8:4, NIV 2011: "What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"
Psa 78:25, NIV 2011: "Human beings ate the bread of angels; he sent them all the food they could eat."
1Co 7:23, NIV 2011: "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."
Gal 1:10, NIV 2011: "Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Mat 15:9, NIV 2011: "They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'"
Mat 21:25, NIV 2011: "John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?"
Psa 108:12, NIV 2011: "Give us aid against the enemy, for human help is worthless.
1Pe 2:4, NIV 2011: "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—"
Nobody talks like that. It sounds very unnatural. Here are 200 more instances where they use the term "human", human beings", or "humans" like this in the 2011 version: Gen 6:2-5, 7; 8:21; 9:5,6; 32:28; Exo 4:11; 13:2; Lev 5:3; 7:21; 24:17; 24:21; 27:28; Num 3:13; 8:17; 18:15; 19:11, 13, 16, 18; 23:19; Deu 4:32; 32:26; Jos 10:14; Jdg 9:9, 13; 1Sa 15:29; 2Sa 7:14, 19; 24:14; 1Ki 8:39; 13:2; 2Ki 19:18; 23:14, 20; 1Ch 21:13; 2Ch 6:18, 30; 32:19; Job 11:12; 21:4; 25:6; 28:4; 28:28; 30:5; 34:20; 35:8; Psa 12:1, 8; 31:20; 60:11; 64:6; 73:5; 78:60; 94:11; 104:15; 108:12; 115:4; 118:8; 119:134; 135:15; 144:3; 146:3; Pro 15:11; 16:1, 9; 18:14; 20:27; 27:20; 30:2; Ecc 3:10, 11, 18, 19; 3:21; Isa 2:11, 22, 17; 7:13; 29:13; 31:8; 37:19; 44:11, 13; 51:12; 52:14; Eze 1:5, 8, 10; 4:12, 15; 10:8, 14, 21; 27:13; 39:15; 41:19; Dan 2:11, 34, 45; 5:5; 6:7, 12; 7:4, 8; 8:25; Hos 11:4; 13:2; Hab 2:8, 17; Zec 12:1; Mat 15:9; 16:23; 21:25; 21:26; Mar 7:7, 8; 8:33; 11:30, 32; 14:58; Luk 20:4, 6; Joh 1:13; 5:34, 41; 8:15; 12:43; Act 5:4, 38; 7:48; 14:11, 15; 17:24, 25, 29; 19:26; Rom 1:23; 2:3, 9; 3:4, 5; 6:19; 9:5, 16, 20; 14:18; 1Co 1:25, 26; 2:1, 5, 9, 13, 15; 3:3, 4, 21; 4:3, 9; 9:8; 15:32; 2Co 3:3; 5:1; Gal 1:11, 16; 3:15; Eph 2:11; Php 2:7; Col 2:8, 11, 22; 3:23; 1Th 2:13; 4:8; Tit 1:14; Heb 2:17; 8:2; 9:11, 24; 12:9; Jas 1:20; 3:8, 9; 5:17; 1Pe 2:4, 13; 4:2, 6; 2Pe 1:21; 2:16; 1Jn 5:9; Rev 9:7; 18:13; 21:17.
For these and other reasons, I
will personally keep using my 1978 version until it falls apart. In fact, it has
fallen apart, and I have gotten it professionally repaired a few times.
If you cannot obtain the 1978 version, then try to find the 1984
version, which will be very difficult, unless you are willing to pay a
lot of money for it. You will need to search the Internet for sellers
of this older edition, since it is not available in bookstores any
longer. That is because Biblica owns the copyright to both the 1984 and
the 2011 edition of the New International Version of the Bible. And
unfortunately Biblica has terminated all publishing rights to all
publishers for the 1984 edition of the NIV.
However, if you cannot find a hard copy of it, you can still read and listen to the NIV 1984 version online at this link, either on your desktop computer or laptop. You may also read and listen to it on your mobile device, using the free app available on the website that hosts the live streaming of this version, which is called Faith Comes By Hearing.
In addition to my old 1978 NIV, which has served me well all these years, I also read from the NASB on my e-sword program when doing Bible studies. I also read from other versions (including the KJV) and often conduct studies of the Greek and Hebrew original language as needed. There are times when I check the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, as well. Therefore, I am not tied to one version of the Bible, because no single version is perfect or without issues.
King James Version the Only Inspired Version?
On the other hand, there are those who proclaim that the King James Version is the only version without issues or the only inspired version. If you believe that, then please read a Critical Analysis of the King James Version, by Al Maxey, which is excellent. He has definitely proven that the KJV is not without issues. For example:
1) The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. So which King James Bible is inspired?
2) The KJV Preface asks, “How shall men meditate on that which they do not understand?” They sought to put it into the language that common people used every day, so that they could understand the Bible. However, what was common language 400 years ago has become outdated and difficult to understand for most English-speaking people today.
3) For all its flowery language and other positive characteristics, the KJV has doctrinal problems, textual manipulation, lack of uniformity, archaeological inaccuracies, textual inaccuracies, mistranslations, and paraphrasing.
4) Factual evidence reveals that the KJV is not the most accurate and easy to understand version of the Bible.
5) Other English versions existed before the KJV, such as Tyndale's New Testament, the Rheims New Testament, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, so it is not the original English version. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Protestant Reformers; it was the people's choice for seventy-five years before the King James Bible was produced, and was the preferred Bible of the common Christian household. In fact, it was the Bible used by the Puritans who migrated to America.
6) The KJV translators used more than just the original Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture to produce the English text found in that version. They also used the Bishop's Bible as their source text, as well as the Geneva Bible, both of which are English translations, along with other versions already in existence, including the Latin Vulgate, which was corrupted. So it is a real hybrid of many sources.
7) The KJV was not the first authorized version. Rather, the Great Bible of 1539 was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England. That was based primarily on Tyndale's works.
Therefore, if you are going to point out the issues with the NIV or other modern versions, please don't use that as a basis for saying we must read only the KJV. If you are going to say there is an evil agenda with the NIV, or that it has been corrupted, then you would have to say the same thing about the KJV.
Putting it All Together
I hope this article has helped to show the strengths and weaknesses of not only the NIV but also other versions like the KJV. I have shown that you cannot make a valid case for the KJV being superior in all respects to the NIV, since the KJV is certainly not perfect, nor is it the only inspired version.
In addition to my old 1978 NIV, which has served me well all these years, I also read from the NASB on my e-sword program when doing Bible studies. I also read from other versions (including the KJV) and often conduct studies of the Greek and Hebrew original language as needed. There are times when I check the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, as well. Therefore, I am not tied to one version of the Bible, because no single version is perfect or without issues.
King James Version the Only Inspired Version?
On the other hand, there are those who proclaim that the King James Version is the only version without issues or the only inspired version. If you believe that, then please read a Critical Analysis of the King James Version, by Al Maxey, which is excellent. He has definitely proven that the KJV is not without issues. For example:
1) The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. So which King James Bible is inspired?
2) The KJV Preface asks, “How shall men meditate on that which they do not understand?” They sought to put it into the language that common people used every day, so that they could understand the Bible. However, what was common language 400 years ago has become outdated and difficult to understand for most English-speaking people today.
3) For all its flowery language and other positive characteristics, the KJV has doctrinal problems, textual manipulation, lack of uniformity, archaeological inaccuracies, textual inaccuracies, mistranslations, and paraphrasing.
4) Factual evidence reveals that the KJV is not the most accurate and easy to understand version of the Bible.
5) Other English versions existed before the KJV, such as Tyndale's New Testament, the Rheims New Testament, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, so it is not the original English version. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Protestant Reformers; it was the people's choice for seventy-five years before the King James Bible was produced, and was the preferred Bible of the common Christian household. In fact, it was the Bible used by the Puritans who migrated to America.
6) The KJV translators used more than just the original Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture to produce the English text found in that version. They also used the Bishop's Bible as their source text, as well as the Geneva Bible, both of which are English translations, along with other versions already in existence, including the Latin Vulgate, which was corrupted. So it is a real hybrid of many sources.
7) The KJV was not the first authorized version. Rather, the Great Bible of 1539 was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England. That was based primarily on Tyndale's works.
Therefore, if you are going to point out the issues with the NIV or other modern versions, please don't use that as a basis for saying we must read only the KJV. If you are going to say there is an evil agenda with the NIV, or that it has been corrupted, then you would have to say the same thing about the KJV.
Putting it All Together
I hope this article has helped to show the strengths and weaknesses of not only the NIV but also other versions like the KJV. I have shown that you cannot make a valid case for the KJV being superior in all respects to the NIV, since the KJV is certainly not perfect, nor is it the only inspired version.
Fortunately, some of us still have the NIV 1978 version, which was pretty good overall. That is still my favorite version. However, if the only version of the NIV that I could buy was the 2011 version, I definitely would not pay a penny for it. I find the gender neutralization of that version to be not only very annoying, but also untrue to the original meaning of the text. I do believe that it compromises the Word of God and I do not recommend it. Therefore, if I had to chose another version besides the NIV, my next choice would be the NASB, which is a more literal version which has not been gender neutralized. May the Lord guide you as you prayerfully consider which version is best for you.
Further Reading
Please also see my other posts on this blog, titled The Scripture Must Be Fulfilled, God's Word Never Fails, The NET Bible, and the Conciseness of God.
Please also see my other posts on this blog, titled The Scripture Must Be Fulfilled, God's Word Never Fails, The NET Bible, and the Conciseness of God.
I highly recommend these posts by other authors, as well:
An excellent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the NIV by Al Maxey.
An excellent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the King James version by Al Maxey.
An excellent resource regarding the "King James Only" issue.
Attribution notice: Scripture quotation taken from the NASB. Wherever noted, Scripture quotations taken from the Holy Bible NIV, copyright Zondervan, all rights reserved, used by permission.
Attribution notice: Scripture quotation taken from the NASB. Wherever noted, Scripture quotations taken from the Holy Bible NIV, copyright Zondervan, all rights reserved, used by permission.
Author's note: If you enjoyed
this post, you may also like the other posts in this blog available
through the Home page of this blog. You may also access my complete blog
directory at "Writing for the Master."
___________________________________________________
Len Lacroix is the founder of Doulos Missions International.
He was based in Eastern Europe for four years, making disciples, as
well as helping leaders to be more effective at making disciples who
multiply, developing leaders who multiply, with the ultimate goal of
planting churches that multiply. His ministry is now based in the United
States with the same goal of helping fulfill the Great Commission. www.dmiworld.org.
