Source: https://freshread.wordpress.com/tag/new-niv/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:00:07+00:00

Document:
I got the NIV NT and then the NIV whole bible later, when it came out in a nice single column format. It was my bible for years – notes and highlights in the text. Until finally it wore out.
Its value is a combination of faithfulness to the original text along with readability. Some translations that were more “literal” were almost unreadable. So the NIV was a solid bible for anyone. People who had not grown up in the church could read it.
I am been reading for a year in the New NIV – it is generally like the Old NIV – there are some changes – the most controversial is the attempt at gender neutrality. When a male pronoun is really a generic pronoun, they translate it generically. “Brothers” become “brothers and sisters.” Yet God is still “Father” and Jesus is still the “Son.” I’m ok with that. It is how English works these days.
I have noted a few clunks – when “they” is used for “he” it can change the meaning – from singular to plural. Psalm 32 was an example of this kind of clunk.
However, overall I find the New NIV usable.
Yet, after a transition, the NIV – 84 has been removed from the list of choices on-line. You can not buy a new old NIV because they are no longer printed. You can not find it on Bible Gateway, because it is no longer there.
Here are 7 ways to divide a chapter.
John 8 is a complex “discourse” that involves an extended interaction between Jesus and both seekers and opponents.
v. 51-59 – …will not see death.
Leon Morris – The Gospel According to John – NICNT (Eerdmans, 1971). He notes that this seems to happen at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles (ch 7) and involved Jesus and his opponents. (however note v. 30). He offers no reason for his breakdown except at v. 20.
v. 58 – I am!
Translations usually provide divisions with headings, this reflects a kind of commentary on the text.
v. 21-30 – Dispute over Who Jesus is.
Then they noted that one can “comb through the passage looking for the following motifs: 1. Jesus as controversialist, 2. evidence that Jesus is Divine, 3. The story line of hostility between religious leaders and Jesus, 4. teaching on sin and forgiveness and 5 the authority of Jesus. It is unusual that they do not attempt to discern a larger structure.
The ESV seems to agree with Talbert that the passages revolves around strong statements by Jesus, however they divide the text differently In my version of the ESV, there is a space added at v. 20.
The variety from this small sample shows how fluid this text is. Talbert is the most interested in internal grammatical structure. The NIV was on to the idea of this being a dispute, but they did not label the last section that way, which is odd because it ends with opponents wanting to throw stones at Jesus. The Old and New NIV’s did not agree on divisions or headings.
Talbert and Hawley’s seven “I am” statements give one a handle, but I am not sure they reflect the internal structure of the passage. It is also confusing with the more typically cited “I AM” statements that are claims to divine status.
The Rykens give little hope of finding a structure.
Psalm 146: An observation on three Translations.
I am comparing two verses from Psalm 146 in the old NIV, the New NIV and the ESV.
The term “son of man” is changed to” human beings” in the New NIV and “mortal men” in the Old NIV. You see that both try to contemporize an expression to present English. “son of man” is awkward, and also makes some confusion with the use of that phrase as a title for Jesus. ESV retains the word for word translation, which is clear with some thought.
V. 4 says that such a person goes to the earth. In Hebrew “man” is “adam” and “earth” is “adamah”. The pun is lost in all English translations. However the allusion to Genesis is clear when one remembers that Adam was made of the dust of the earth.
The singular “he” is changed in the New NIV to a plural pronoun. This was also the method used with several others: NRSV, NLT, Contemporary. One of the interesting things in Psalm 146 is the interplay between singular and plural. “Hallelujah” which is a plural command, “Let us praise the LORD”. The this changes quickly to the singular in verse 2 , “I will praise the Lord.” The Beatitude of v. 5 is individual, and seems to call for a personal response.
In discussing the New NIV, someone called it a “liberal” translation.
My friend meant “theologically liberal” I suppose. There are some attempts to translate the scriptures in a totally gender neutral way. Someone heard in a church liturgy that the Lord’s Prayer began with “Our Leader” instead of “Our Father”. So some wish to do away with Trinitarian language of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because of the latent “paternalism” of “Father” and “Son”. Yet we have to say that Father does mean something different than leader or parent. Son is different than child and these words bear some theological weight. These sorts of translations are a kind of re-definition or revision of the scriptures according to an external cultural value (gender egalitarianism).
Yet the New NIV (NNIV) does not go that far. It merely attempts to say generically in English what is understood to be generic in the original context. So Romans 12:1 says “I urge you, therefore, brothers….” Since we do not think that Romans 12 only applies to male believers, the NNIV changes “brothers” to “brothers and sisters”. This really comes down to a preference in translation philosophy. Should the translation stick closer to the orignal words and it is up to the reader to understand the nuances? Or, should the translation spell out the nuances for the reader?
Also, in the 21st Century, generic usage has won out over using male gender for generic settings. We say “humankind” not “mankind”. We sing “Good Christians all rejoice” not “Good Christian men rejoice”. We do not say “The sinfulness of Man”, but “the sinfulness of humanity.” A theologically liberal “translation” might speak of the innate goodness of humanity. I once heard s speaker say “I don’t believe in original sin, but original goodness.” That, I would agree, reflects a theologically liberal viewpoint. but saying “humanity” instead of “man” or “mankind” does not.
So, the NNIV is not “liberal” in the sense that my friend asked. It may not be to his taste, but let’s be careful what we mean when we speak. It is moderately inclusive.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 

v. 
 v. 

V. 
 v.