1 Stars Out Of 5
The NIV 2011 falls short on accuracy
August 29, 2012
For many years I have given out the 1984 NIV Pocket Gospel of John, which is now been retired and replaced by the 2011 NIV version that I won't give out.
38 years ago I came to know the Lord by reading the Gospel of John. Therefore, God's Word is the supreme authority in my life. As a teaching elder in our church, when preparing a presentation, I have used the 1984 NIV for an initial overview, and then studied the NAS (and recently the ESV) for greater accuracy with the details and nuances of the text. The differences between translations like the NAS & ESV compared to the NIV & NLT is best understood by examining the two translation camps scholars have defined as the Essentially Literal (EL), and Dynamic Equivalent (DE). I appreciate the easy newspaper style of the 1984 NIV (DE), but will study the more complex text of the NAS & ESV (EL) for accuracy (especially since I have not mastered Greek and Hebrew to read ancient original manuscripts).
My problem with the 2011 NIV revision is that they have created a "neutered" version by taking words in the original text that are gender specific and rendering them gender neutral. This may make the text more "acceptable" in our pluralistic, gender sensitive culture, but I believe that it can minimalize, and sometimes incorrectly, convey what God wants to tell us. There are some good specific examples of this on review websites.