Differences Between The 1984 New International Version NIV And The 2011 New International Version 

Thanks for the update on the NIV.

I still can not understand why Zondervan is no longer publishing what had become the most popular Bible of the last 40 years among conservative evangelicals around the English speaking world. How many millions of Christians committed themselves to memorizing a version that can not be found anywhere on line, and is no longer printed? This was so clear to me when I heard a pastor preaching, quoting scripture after scripture he had memorized from the 1984 version, meanwhile the church had the 2011 NIV, which was up on the screen. I'm not saying that the 2011 or 1984 versions are better or worse. I just can't understand why this version that millions have memorized can't no be found electronically or in print (aside from used versions on ebay).

The best Bible is the one your reading. King James does not reach the lost as much these days, so you can't dismiss other versions so easily. Are you gathering or scattering? Peace 2 Timothy 3:16 , ESV 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

John 17 : 22 " And I have given them the glory which YOU gave me, that they may be one as we are one. I am in them, and YOU are in me, so that their unity with us and with each other may stand consummated and complete."

I have a question, I have a Bible NIV...that I bought in 2014....and I admit I’ve not used it much, because for some reason I keep going right back to my old NIV that’s literally falling apart. I hadn’t realized until tonight that the one I bought in 2014 was the updated 2011 version. Though when I did used the one I bought in 2014, sounded a little weird. My question is, what should I do? Is it worth keeping and studying out of?

Pastor Waldren, where can I get a copy of the 1984 NIV Bible???? Thanks.

I found a 1984 NIV Bible along with a small framed picture of Jesus in a small frame and a larger framed metal plaque of the Lord’s Prayer and small pewter cross all in a bin on the side of the road on garbage day back when I use to recycle metal, I took them with and gave them to my dad. I figured he would appreciate it more than waste management

NIV 2011 Bible got update cause the English language changes since The 1984 NIV Bible, I have both.

Given the statistics that Pastor Steve Waldron gives in this video, the 2011 NIV is actually a revision of the TNIV of 2005, not a revision of the NIV of 1984. In less than 1% of time does the 2011 NIV revert to a 1984 NIV reading over a 2005 TNIV reading. Thus the NIV is now out of print; what the public is being offered today by Zondervan is a revised TNIV. However, for marketing purposes, the deceitful Zondervan Corporation has removed the "T" from this 2011 Bible, and has deceitfully called it "NIV" when it is not. Zondervan, committed as it is to gender-neutral (i.e. feminist) language, refuses to republish the NIV of 1984. Solution: forget about the NIV, and try some version that does not use gender-neutral (i.e. feminist and of course unBiblical) English.

How can you say that the NASB is not as good a version as the KJV? That God only preserved His word in the KJV. You do know that the KJV was the Catholic answer to the Geneva Bible right? So what about that? I think a look into history shows that God preserved His word from the time of the apostles till now and one of the ways He did this was through the KJV but also through many other versions. How can one say His word is not being preserved in the NASB? I don’t get that. I read mainly from the NKJV but I also study from the NASB. That is an excellent translation and if you think it’s not as close to the originals as the KJV then that’s not a good practice of textual criticism on your part. It’s one thing to say the KJV is your favorite version but it’s quite another to say God is only preserving His word through the KJV. That’s just so ignorant of any real understanding of textual criticism. Look, I like the versions made from the Received Text as I feel the family of the Majority text cleans up a lot of what is seen in the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Viticanus. Of course the Received Text does differ in places with the Majority text but it’s definitely closer related to the Majority Text than to Sinaiticus or Viticanus. But there are good reasons to believe the KJV also has mistakes as well. It’s not a perfect version of the originals by any means but it’s a good version. I think the NASB would be even closer to the originals than the KJV. But not the ESV even though it is a good translation but only of Sinaiticus and Viticanus. I do like daily reading from my NKJV though and then studying from my NASB back to NKJV and also commentaries concerning Greek words. A good trans line Bible is also a great resource.

Some of the stuff in the 2011 surprised me. As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death .. was changed to walking through the deepest darkest valley. Other stuff such as coming to Christ .. he is a new creation .. that was changed to a new creation has come and the old is gone. If they wanted to go gender neutral they could of said they are a new creation and kept it more like the 84. Some spots they use parents instead of father and mother even though the Greek says father and mother. I prefer the 84 version over the 2011 but the 84 is no longer in print. I’ve since gone to a different translation.

i hope it now have italics

Which is better in your opinion

I was in my small group and read from the KJV. When I finished they laughed at what I read and asked what translation I was reading from! I told them, of course. True story! I am saddened by this.

5:30 ish God's preserved 'word' was in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (Ancient renditions to say the least), contexts/definitions/nuances can get misrepresented through translation (again, to say the least). We (Protestant(s)) have weighed heavy on the inerrancy of God's word, equally, if not more weight should be laboured for knowing His 'W'ord, hearing/seeing His true Word. The Word through which Yahweh spoke all creation into being; the Heb/Arm/Grk, the very signature (conduit) with which He breathed/inspired His written/performed will on/through tablets of clay. Blessed Redeemer, Son/Word of God, You alone are 'the' way, You alone are 'the' truth, and You; in You alone is 'the' life, upon the tree is the fruit, the life is in the blood. The tree of Life upon the Mount, our tree of life, Whose fruit we must consume, for the day we eat, we surely die. Our death belongs to Christ, our life belongs to Christ; nothing & none but Christ Yahoshea can save us; the word of the Word is our bread sent from heaven, the blood of the Word is our drink sent from heaven. ......whosoever believeth in (into) him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not his Son 'into' the world to condemn.....(Jn3v16b-17a KJV) See the 'into' sounds a little off in the English, but is it not the Greek? We war over faith alone but believing 'into' something is more than believing a fact, it's living 'inside' the fact, a fusion, 2 into 1. Faith & obedience, Jesus is the WTL, home is near brethren, our God is an awesome God. HalleluYAH, HalleluYAH, HalleluYAH! Amen! Btw 7:29 what? 'reading the KJV will get you to heaven'....? Reading a certain translation is not assurance of a seat at the great wedding feast, A life surrendered to Christ Jesus the Lord(born of the Virginia Mary by the Holy Spirit, lived and died in complete obedience to His Father, the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and now intercedes for us at His right hand until the day of consummation, when He comes to retrieve His bride the church, and puts an end to sin & death, the devil & His fallen) is the only way to the Father and His kingdom of heaven. Amen.

I used to think the 84 NIV was better than the 2011 version until I read this review. Robert C. Rogers 4.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase Updated NIV is more accurate, but more controversial Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2011 In March 2011, the copyright owners of the most popular modern translation of the Bible in English, the New International Version (NIV), published the first revision of the NIV since 1984. As a pastor who did not like the over-reaching political correctness of the Today's New International Version (TNIV, copyright 2002), I was concerned when I heard that the NIV itself was going to be revised. But after studying the digital early release version in numerous passages, I have been pleased that it is more accurate, but disappointed that while the use of gender-neutral language does not go as far as the TNIV, it still goes too far. The new NIV retains 95% of the words of the 1984 edition, but where there are changes, it communicates the original meaning better to modern readers and more accurately than before. Let me address several issues: gender-neutral language, omission of words, and accuracy of translation. First, the most controversial issue of the TNIV (the earlier failed attempt to revise the NIV) was its gender-neutral language. The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution in June 2011 saying they "cannot commend" the 2011 NIV. Why is that? The 2011 NIV does not go as far as the TNIV. In Hebrews 12, where scripture speaks of God disciplining us like a father, the TNIV changed "father" to "parent." This implied that God was a gender-neutral "parent" rather than our "heavenly Father." I'm glad to report that the new NIV has "father," just as the 1984 edition had. However, the new NIV, like the TNIV, does use gender-neutral "brothers and sisters" when the context clearly means all believers. Since modern English speakers use both genders, "brothers and sisters," when addressing all believers, not just the masculine "brothers," it makes sense that the Bible they are reading do the same. However, this may not be acceptable to all readers, particularly in passages like Psalm 1, where the masculine pronoun is often associated with a reference to manhood. In the 1984 NIV, Psalm 1 says, "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked... He is like a tree planted by streams of water..." but the 2011 NIV renders it, "Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked...That person is like a tree planted by steams of water..." The 2011 NIV changes "fathers" to "parents" in Malachi 4:6, although the Hebrew word is ab, fathers. Also, Ezekiel 22:30, the famous "stand in the gap" passage used by Promise Keepers to challenge men, has been changed from "man" to "someone." A favorite verse of the men's group, Promise Keepers, was Proverbs 27:17, because it said that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. However, the 2011 NIV changes "man" to "person." These kind of changes can be found hundreds of times throughout the Old and New Testaments in the 2011 NIV. However, the 2011 NIV continues to say "sons" in Romans 8:14 and "sonship" in Romans 8:15 in a discussion of spiritual adoption which refers to the male heir. Thus it does not use gender-neutral language in places where it would impact theology, but it does use gender-neutral language in some places that have traditionally been interpreted as references to manhood. The revised NIV also continues to maintain clear sexual distinctions between the genders in passages like Genesis 1:27, which reads, "So God created mankind in his own image...male and female he created them." The second translation issue is the omission of words. One of the biggest criticisms of the 1984 NIV was that sometimes words in the Greek text simply were not translated. The most notorious example was the Gospel of Mark, which makes frequent use of the Greek word euthus, "immediately." For some reason, there were many verses in the 1984 NIV that simply ignored this word. But the 2011 NIV is careful to translate it as "immediately" or "as soon" etc. in every place where it is used. I have been doing a verse-by-verse study of Romans in the Greek, and comparing the old and new versions of the NIV, I found that where the old NIV omitted the word "or" at the beginning of Romans 3:29, the new NIV restored the word. And in Romans 4:1, the old NIV omitted the words "according to the flesh," but the new NIV put the phrase back in. The third translation issue is the accuracy of translation. In an attempt to be easy to read, the NIV has been less precise in translating words and phrases. It's a difficult balance for any translation, but sometimes the 1984 NIV paraphrased the text in places that caused the reader to miss the technical point that the Biblical writer was making. For example, the 1984 NIV translates Romans 3:28, "observing the law." But the 2011 NIV translates it, "works of the law." The Greek phrase is literally, "works of the law." In Romans chapter 8, Paul uses the word "flesh" as a metaphor for the sinful nature. The 1984 NIV translates it "sinful nature," which gets the idea across, but thereby obscures the deliberate play on words in Romans 8:3 when Paul says that when we were weakened by the flesh, God sent Jesus in the flesh. The 1984 NIV has "sinful nature" in these verses, but the 2011 NIV uses the literal word "flesh." In Romans 8:4, the 1984 NIV says that Jesus' sacrifice satisfied the "righteous requirements" of the law. However, the Greek word translated "requirements" is singular. The 2011 NIV changes it to the singular "requirement." This might seem a minor distinction, but theologically the singular implies that God covers the entirety of our sin, not just some sins. In Romans 10:4, the 1984 NIV reads, "Christ is the end of the law..." The Greek word translated "end" is telos, which means completion. Paul does not mean the law will stop, but that it will be fulfilled. Thus the 2011 NIV reads,"Christ is the culmination of the law..." Another example is Galatians 5:22, where the 1984 NIV lists "patience" among the fruit of the Spirit. The problem is, that there are two Greek words for patience: one word means patience with circumstances, and one word means patience with people. The word used in Galatians 5:22 means patience with people, so the 2011 NIV translates it "forbearance." The 2011 NIV has improved the accuracy of many passages in the Old Testament, as well. Psalm 93:1 reads in the 1984 NIV, "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." This is similar to the KJV, which was misinterpreted centuries ago to mean the universe revolved around the earth. But the Hebrew word means stability, and so the 2011 NIV translates it, "The world is established; firm and secure." Psalm 107 gives four stories of people who have reason to thank the Lord. Thus Psalm 107:2 reads in the 2011 NIV, "Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story," which is an improvement of the 1984 "Let the redeemed of the Lord say this." Different readers will have different opinions about the appropriateness of gender-neutral language in the revised NIV. Some will like it, and others will not. Personally, I can understand the change to "brothers and sisters" or "mankind" when the context clearly refers to all people, but when the context is not clearly gender-neutral, the translation should not be gender-neutral. It is unfortunate that this issue may cloud the discussion of this revision, which is otherwise more accurate than before. People who love the NIV and do not object to gender-neutral language should embrace this revision with even more confidence in its accuracy, and people who object to the gender-neutral language will prefer translations such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) or English Standard Version (ESV). NOTE ON THE KINDLE EDITION: Navigating to the books of the Bible may seem slow in the Kindle edition, but I have found a faster way than going back to the Table of Contents. If you click on the Menu button and then click on "Search this Book," you can enter the title of the book, followed by the chapter number, and when you hit "find" you can go directly to the beginning of that chapter.

The changes from 1984 to 2011 tipped me off that there is a big big problem. Now I'm KJV only - but I'll hear your foreign language translations of the received text too. David Daniels of Chick Publications did a great job of explaining what codex Sinaiticus actually is, and where it comes from. Making a supposedly stronger statement against homosexuality in 2 Corinthians boils down to saying that some of the church in Corinth was formerly homosexuals and were yet saved - yet this is not what the text says: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. If you believe you should spend your efforts on those who are implacable and hate God, the NIV2011 will help you to throw your pearls before swine.

TNIV vs NIV which is closer to KJV

Thanks for this video. I am not happy with the 2011 update. Very disappointed. I have trouble with the gender neutral changes. I do not enjoy reading King James version.

NIV use to be a good Daly reader. But study out of The kjv

(Psalm 90:12 Teach us to number our days ("aright") that we may gain a heart of wisdom.) NOW it just reads ("teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom") . apparently ,these new authors feel the same way Satan does, he doesn't want us to number our days correctly so that we can keep the Sabbaths and feast days and laws properly, no he just wants us to (number our days) as in die already.

That's what me and my friends call the NIV, the nearly inspired version. It was the Bible I used solely for 20 years. The Father still used it to work in me, but I'm so glad I became aware of the changes to the text. I am glad that they have strengthened the sections of the text on sexual sins. 11% of the text is different? Yikes. 60% of all NIV's have the same text. Do they just go along and when there is a reaction, they just change things whenever they want to? It's a shame BSF has embraced the NIV for years now and has recommended the 2011 edition now too.

The KJV is good enough, but it's not the best. God has preserved the important stuff in all bibles. They all preach love, righteousness and worship of the Father. If you like the KJV, check out the MSTC Bible, it is awesome, I prefer it over KJV. If you want modern English, NLT and NIV are fine. The NLT changed my life, it's the bible that put me on a path to being born again.

NIV (1984) - New Infected Version

God so inspired the KJV translators that 80% of it is quotes from Tyndale's Bible ≽ܫ≼