Talk:New International Version

message: Regarding this passage from the article:
:Among the differences in the TNIV is that it will use more gender-neutral language, referring in some places, for example, to "children of God" instead of "sons of God" and changing phrases such as "a man is justified by faith" to "a person is justified by faith."  Male references to God, however, will not be modified. 
Would it be fair to say that this is the same or similar approach taken to gender-neutral language that was used in gong from the Revised Standard Version to the New Revised Standard Version? Sounds the same to me, but I want to verify before changing the text. Thanks, Wesley
-----
According to IBS:
2. Trademarks. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society in the United States and other countries. IBS, the IBS Logo, and IBSDIRECT.COM and the IBSDIRECT.COM Logo are trademarks and service marks of IBS. All other trademarks, service marks, and logos used in this Web Site are the trademarks, service marks, or logos of their respective owners. Other trademarks of IBS may be added from time to time on this site. In order to preclude confusion among our visitors, the trademarks and service marks of IBS may not be used in any manner in connection with any product or service that is not a product or service of IBS, without the prior written consent of IBS. By using this Web Site, you acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the IBS trademarks and agree that you will not in any way infringe, either directly or indirectly, the IBS trademarks.
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/bibles/termsofuse.php
hoshie
:Not sure why the above was posted as it doesn't have anything to do with our use of the IBS and NIV names.  In any case, I've removed the registered trademark symbols from the article, since we're under no obligation to mark third-party trademarks. Psychonaut 15:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender-neutral language

message: I am Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and most Lutherans tend to see ourselves as distinct from "Protestantism" since Luther predated that term. There were Lutherans involved in translation of the NIV. There were also Anglican/Episcopalian translators, and they often see themselves as closer to Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. I assume that by "Protestant" the article is referring to Christians in general who are not part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions. Currently we use the NIV in our liturgy and as the basis for our Concordia Self-Study Bible, though we are adopting the English Standard Version once our new hymnal is released in 2006.--MarshallStack 17:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-Protestants" WERE involved 

message: A few years ago someone explained the reasoning behind the copyrighting of the NIV translation of the Bible, but I can no longer recall what it was.  Does anyone have the reasoning for reserving the copyrights? --129.173.105.28 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted?

message: The category has been put up several times by authors, pastors, etc., however, someone from Zondervan keeps deleting them. Check the edit history and you'll see, they've made hundreds of deletions of any criticism beyond the ploy criticism they posted to make this biased document not seem too staged. This comment will probably be deleted as well. 50.133.17.223 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category 

message: Those numbers are unsourced and unexplained. Where do they come from and what do they mean? Peter Ballard 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Textual Basis" and "Translation Type" 

message: One of the recent vandals inserted this link http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/13795-niv.html in the NIV entry he vandalized. I traced the IP to New York. In the post on the message board from Chad, Administrator of the website "Talk Jesus", who posted a long diatribe against the New International Version of the Bible, is in New York according to the location listed for him. Coincidence? I have no idea why adherents to the King James Version of the Bible continue to act this way. Knight1000 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Vandalism 

message: getting the broom and vacuum cleaner out
*Removed King James Bible propaganda
*Removed information and subject matter that seemed more like gossip belonging in a National Inquirer, some was pretty inflammatory and didn't have any references
*Removed information from infidels.org; quoting anything from infidels.org and expecting it to be unbaised is silly
*Removed information that the New International Version is tied with a conspiratorial homosexual agenda, this is beyond silly for anyone to even entertain this as substantive
*Discrepancy’s and problems with the codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, should go in those respective areas or another area. The NIV entry is not really a good place to air personal grips about codexs
*King James Onlyism debate information needs to go in its respective area, especially when the topics discussed have nothing to do with the NIV
*Added new information w/references
*Clean up the wording, article short and to the point, w00t!
Knight1000 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your effort, and I'm glad a lot of that ridiculous KJV-only stuff is gone (if for no other reason than it belongs in an article on the KJV-only debate). But something about "evangelical bias" needs to go back in. I always thought that was a relatively widespread criticism of the NIV, and I've even noticed it myself FWIW. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "evangelical bias"? You will have to clue me in, I've never heard of that charge unless your referring to information from infidels.org. Knight1000 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and Overhaul 

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to the fact that the NIV was created partly in response to the "young woman" translation controversy in the NRSV/RSV?--Sailor Titan (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps true of the New American Standard Bible; but since the NASB was already in existence I doubt that was true of the NIV. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaiah 7:14 

message: Why is Dan Barker the source for translation criticism? By his own admission he only has two years of undergraduate Greek to his name. Similarly, his criticism is simply in error.--Ari89 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barker 

message: You refer to different manuscripts that are [perhaps more accurate under the section entitled criticisms. what are the names of these "superior" manuscripts" -- 216.190.69.62
I think the text is quite clear. The NIV New Testament is based on Nestle-Aland. Evercat (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question moved from main 

message: A verse in Corinthians uses the word homosexuality although this term did not exist in any language until 1869.  Can someone put this in the criticisms page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.79.115 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Basileias (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: You are referring to I Corinthians 6:9, which was translated "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." in the NIV until at least 1997. It's true that "homosexual" is not an exact translation of "αρσενοκοιτης". But they have changed it to "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men". This is perhaps a better translation of "αρσενοκοιται" (although one could argue that it misuses the word "sex"), but they have neglected to translate the previous term, "μαλακοι". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: :The criticism section uses these sources for it's criticisms. 
:*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Bible
:*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32644719/ns/us_news-faith/
:*http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-
:*http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/versions.html
:I fail to see how most of these support the various criticisms cited. I would like to remove most of them and rename the the "criticism" section to "reception." The is the norm is most article when dealing with how something was received; like movies, books, etc. Basileias (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: criticisms

message: biblegateway.com shows it as 2011 Smith03 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011 vs 2010

message: An edit by user BlueMesa171 stating "the Revised Standard Version "a much better literary achievement and more worthy of acceptance as the standard media Bible," doesn't make any sense to add. The reason is the article is about the New International Version, not the Revised Standard Version, it also sounds opinionated. While I don't have issues with that statement in Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate in the Revised Standard Version article. Basileias (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised Standard Version

message: Basileias, why did you take out my examples of non-literal translation? We don't need a citation to prove that that's what the NIV has done! When Wikipedia installed its policy that things need to be supported by citations, they did not mean that no one can write anything intelligent without proving that some other "reliable source" said it! Recently I added in the article on the Gospel of Peter that it disagrees with the Epistle of Peter on a certain point, and someone reverted it saying I need a source! I get the impression that certain people use the rules against "original research" and in favor of "neutral point of view" to enforce their own point of view. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes exemplifying non-literal translation

message: Basileias, I am a bit confused about your recent editing of my work.  You seem more interested in hiding documentation and driving an agenda rather than helping wiki readers learn about various subjects.  For example, this is a quote from the NIV page.
However, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected the 2011 update because of gender-related issues.
This sentence has no sourcing.  I bring in a source and you remove it.  The source is the resolution that Southern Baptists passed against the 2011 NIV.  Why would you not want this linked?  It is obviously a good source for the sentence.  Here is the link: 
:Yes, it is sourced. It is a couple sentences down. Basileias (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbmw.org and sbc.net are advocacy organizations. They are not third party neutral news sites. Also what you entered regarding language is already covered. You are promoting those sites. I think for now this article should be tag POV until this is resolved. WP:RSUW what you are entering is lacking reliable sources and could create an undue weight. Also, another article which I think, you once supplied (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm), says "the New Bible drops gender-neutral language of '05 version." Basileias (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - 2011 Revision Editing 

message: User Toverton28 (talk) appeared very focused on the New International Version. Cbmw.org is interested in promoting its own translation. Which makes this advocacy group further removed from sourcing. Many modern translations have already gone down a modern English road. To name a few. 
*New Revised Standard Version
*New Living Translation
*Updated New American Standard Version (incorporates some modern language)
*The Message
*Common English Bible
Basileias (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - gender-neutral Bible 

message: Mr. Overton, the 1997 revision is a different version and worldmag.com is not known as a neutral source in these matters. This article is not advocacy for views from Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Southern Baptist Convention. There is also an article in usatoday that conflicts with less neutral sources, the ones your are providing. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm) Pleaes handle this issue here. The disagreements over gender language are covered in the article and what you are adding is undue weight. Basileias (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Washingtonpost.com is a valid source. However how did you take this from the article? "While much of the conservative Christian criticism of the TNIV was incorporated into the 2011 revision," It appears to conflict with the USATODAY article.
I think the statement, "TheCouncil on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood still argues that gender-neutral language remains." is valid and it has a good source.
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/17/AR2011031703434.html
Can we work on this and how to incorporate it here on the talk page? Basileias (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Washingtonpost.com

message: I plan on removing the POV tag in a week or so. Participation has dropped from involved parties. Basileias (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: On July 29, 2016 Aurelius139 altered the image used in the infobox, adding the latest image of the New International Version. The edit summary was, "Updating photo to reflect the current / modern NIV Bible cover, which was revised in 2011. Previous photo was an outdated version of the NIV". I accept that the change was made in good faith, however, it was a mistake. Images of older editions of a book are preferred in an infobox, with first editions being best of all. The current image should be replaced with a first edition if possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New International Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/699uJ1Zxq?url=http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf to http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618072352/http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/gender-neutral%20NIV%202011%20article%20edited.pdf to http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/gender-neutral%20NIV%202011%20article%20edited.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707232957/http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/NIV_MCT.pdf to http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/NIV_MCT.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Source 11 does not exist "Irwin, Ben (2002). History of the English Bible. Zondervan. p. 61." The sentence which it is affixed to should be removed in my opinion unless an existing source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.198.15 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added here by , who doesn't seem to be active any longer. It was a PDF at first and was converted to an ISBN entry here, but that is for From Sanctuary to Boardroom: A Jewish Approach to Leadership and was removed shortly after that. I was able to find it at the Internet Archive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-existing source in this article?

message: In the "2011 Update" subsection, I've marked two references to "TNIV" as needing clarification as nothing with that acronym or to which that acronym could be applied is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Has a chunk of history been deleted without corresponding changes, perhaps? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since posting the foregoing I've found the deletion in this edit by an IP editor with no talk page discussion and an edit comment only of "Not related". I'm not sufficiently knowledgable about this subject to know whether that edit should be reversed or the two leftover references to "TNIV" should be removed/rewritten. I'll leave that question for y'all to decide by consensus, but one or the other should be done since the article is currently ambiguous. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Restored. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNIV? 

message: The 2 sources for the line "Translational issues with Paul's letters were also addressed.", Zondervan (2011) and NBC News (2009), do not say anything about translational issues with Paul's letters. Can anyone find a real source for this? If not, the line should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.73.237 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same thing, and removed it. I would be very surprised if there is a need to specially mention Paul's letters. Adpete (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Translation Update sources 

message: In this edit:  an editor has provided a source to say that this version is authorsied for use in Anglican churches. I have reverted it for a few reasons, but I am not fundamentally opposed to the inclusion of this text if we can deal with these. The reasons are:
# The source is from the American episcopal church, and it is not clear at all whether it applies to the whole communion, nor where the information is coming from. Is this based on some wider adoption through, e.g, Lambeth conferences? A better source is needed here. 
# It is not really clear if this is an exhaustive list, and if nearly all translations are authorised, then the information is not really due.
# The source specifically says NIV 1978. The NIV has three versions, and you can no longer obtain the NIV 1978. A strict reading of this would suggest the NIV 2011 is not, in fact, authorised. 
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorised