The NIV is going away. How weird is that? That is, the 1984 version is going away, the version that has dominated the Protestant landscape for several decades. The 2011 version is supplanting it.
I did my formative Bible study on the NIV (admittedly starting with an earlier version than the 1984 one). It’s the main version I used while getting my degrees in college.
Whereas the 1984 version made cosmetic changes to the earlier versions (so much so that I can’t think of any except for John 1:18), the 2011 makes widespread major changes, some for better, some for worse. (The official word from the publisher: “In this update, about 95% of the text remains exactly the same as the 1984 NIV that it replaces, based on the number of word changes.”)
What jolted me to the reality of the transition was this announcement from Accordance Bible Software:
At the publisher’s request, we are required to stop selling the NIV 1984 edition and the TNIV after January 16, 2012. That means there is just over a week left to purchase these Bibles if you would like them. This also applies to the bundles that include them.
We understand that many of our customers are interested in these versions, so please be sure to act now if you want to be able to use these Bibles in Accordance. After Monday, January 16, 2012, we will no longer be able to sell the NIV84 and TNIV.
We will also be required to stop supporting backups (Easy Install) for these Bibles after one year, so be sure to backup these files so that you will always have access to them.
Version replacement is common. Most KJV readers don’t use the 1611 version. It just caught me by surprise, I guess.
OK, I fell for USA Today’s headline. “Bible readers prefer King James version,” it said. And the story itself even said: “82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.” Now, as Peter Kirk over at Better Bibles blog pointed out, unless the USA Today is talking about the Geneva Bible, that sentence isn’t very accurate. But it’s inaccurate for another reason: the Lifeway Research study on which the article is based doesn’t say that!
Here’s how Lifeway put it:
Among those who read the Bible regularly the percentage of KJV owners is even higher. A full 82 percent of Americans who read the Bible at least once a month own a KJV.
That’s a far cry from saying that 82% prefer the KJV. Lots of people own a King James Bible; how many of them read it? How many prefer to read it? That’s not reported. Which is why the USA Today headline was totally misleading.
I’m not looking to bash the KJV. I’m merely pointing out the fallacy, which I fell into, of relying on second-hand media reports. When possible, check the original source. As I’ve said before, I’m uneasy when someone says “Paul says…” or “the Bible teaches…” unless what is reported is a direct quote from the Bible. Because you always run the risk of someone misinterpreting a passage and reporting it as the truth from the Bible. Like USA Today did with this report from Lifeway.
Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange
I rarely read those group e-mails that get sent out. If someone wants to send me something, they can send it to me personally. I especially avoid anything that says “Fwd:” in the subject line.
But the other day I read an article that a brother was sending to a lot of us who work among Spanish speakers. When I got to the bottom of the article, I realized that it had merely been copied from a web site.
The writer was attacking the “modern versions,” especially focusing on Acts 20:28. He was defending the 1602 Valera version in Spanish and the 1611 King James version in English — not realizing, of course, that these two versions disagree with one another on the translation of this particular verse. The article railed against Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrian texts that they followed, praising the integrity of the Byzantine texts. It accused later versions of wanting to deny the deity of Jesus by changing “church of God” to “church of the Lord” in this verse.
Unfortunately, whoever wrote this particular piece apparently hadn’t done their homework. Several Alexandrian texts read “church of God” in this passage. Several Byzantine texts read “church of the Lord.” And there are lots of variants from there. In English, it’s the King James that reads “church of the Lord” and the modern texts which read “church of God.” It just so happened that that trend was reversed in Spanish.
What I find sad is that people can be so intent on arguing about something that they will argue even when they have little understanding of the subject they are arguing about! I especially tire of this when it comes to versions, as accusations are thrown around about “they made this change to promote ___.”
I have long said that I in my years of study I have only found one version that made intentional changes while translating: the New World Translations produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Admittedly, there may be some that I haven’t seen. And I know that the Conservative Bible Project is doing their level best to produce a “translation” that will match their views. But in general, translators are trying to do just that: translate.
I’m going to try and do better about giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially those that disagree with me. I hope you’ll do the same.
There was a time when I basically had one Bible that I used all of the time. It was a New International Version that had been given to me by some friends in California (whose pet dog had chewed up the Bible I received for high school graduation). I would always have the Bible with me and would use it for devotional reading, personal study, class preparation, as well as teaching and preaching.
Those days are gone. I think I’ve mentioned before that I’ve embarrassed myself at times by arriving somewhere to teach class or to preach and discovered that I didn’t bring a Bible with me! I no longer have a trusty, go-with-me-everywhere Bible.
Here are the main ways I read the Bible now:
- Accordance: I use the Accordance program on my Mac for most of my work in preparing classes and studies. In the basic setup, I have 5 versions open side by side: New International Version, Dios Habla Hoy, King James Version (with Strong’s), English Standard Version, Reina-Valera 1960.
- Bilingual New International Version-Nueva Versión Internacional: A friend in Stockdale, Texas, gave me this Bible. I use it for preaching on Sundays. There are copies of this same Bible available to those in attendance, and I can refer to passages by page number as well as chapter and verse.
- BibleGateway.com: I use this site at times for a quick lookup of a passage. I also use it to print out the main text for my sermons. (Larger font works well for my middle-aged eyes)
- PocketSword: I use this Bible app on the iPod when I’m teaching class at ACU. I often don’t have a convenient way to carry a full text, and this electronic version works well. Plus it’s easier for me to read without glasses. (Funny how that is becoming a recurrent theme in my choice of Bibles)
- NIV Study Bible: Even though I have the full text of this study Bible within the Accordance program, there are times when it is helpful to look at an actual book
How about you? Has your method of reading the Bible changed over the years? Has your Bible version of choice changed at all? Do you think the next generation will be reading the Bible in traditional book form or some other format?