The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012)

Here lies The New International Version 1984. Beloved translation to a generation that sought after God.

funeral4

Who did it?
The NIV 1984 Bible is all but gone. I don’t know if it’s a homicide or suicide. I don’t know if I should phrase that it started falling ill in 2010 and now died at the end of 2012. I don’t know if we intentionally or unintentionally let the enemy change an integral translation that fed the souls of many for 28 years. Its traces can still be seen on biblegateway.com and in popular mobile Bible applications such as Lifechurch.tv’s Youversion. You can also snag one from Christianbook.com’s NIV 1984 Closeout sale. But it’s all but gone from giant online retailers like Amazon.com and when I visited my local brick and mortar Christian book store last week they told me that NIV’s United States publisher, Zondervan, ordered them to turn in all 1984 versions in exchange for 2011 equivalents. As one of my beloved translations of the Protestant’s Bible I will miss it.

The debate on Bible translations
According to my Rose Publishing Bible translations pamphlet there are at least 20 popular English translations of the Bible. They all have different manuscript textual sources and historical motives for translation. A combination of Bible Study (2 Tim 3:16-17) and the Holy Spirit’s guidance (Luke 24:45) is the key to leveraging the Word in the way that God intended. If the factors of Bible Study and the Holy Spirit weigh significantly, then how much weight should be given to a specific translation and if an observation is made that a new generation isn’t leveraging the Bible as they should then is the weakness due to current translations? My answer is that we have to analyze the motives and the differences produced from a new translation. There are genuine linguistic reasons to always ensure that the Bible is clearly understood. After all Christianity doesn’t hold the divinity of The Word to a particular language as Islam does to Arabic and the Quran and Judaism does to Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible. The King James Version was written hundreds of years ago in early modern English which is no longer spoken. Also, translations will always differ as long as their manuscript textual basis differs. The King James Version’s OT was written with certain available Masorectic Texts. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they became factors in subsequent translations such as the Revised Standard Version and New Living Translations. In short I understand why we can justify new translations when new manuscripts are found and the English language changes. But we haven’t experienced a significant linguistic shift since 1984 and I haven’t heard any news about concrete critical archaeological manuscript findings. And I’d like Bible scholars out there to comment on revelatory and meaningful recent discoveries in hermeneutics and exegetical approaches that merited application to the NIV1984. Yet the NIV 2011 translation team states this:

The changes we have made in the update maintain and strengthen this focus, reflecting progress in biblical scholarship, developments in English usage, and an ongoing concern for clarity.” – Source here

The resulting NIV 2011, among other things, has obvious questionable gender pronoun changes. The Unlocking Femininity Blog eloquently addresses this in the old but rich post from 2011: Words Matter: Why We Can’t Recommend the NIV 2011.

funeral3-bmp

Where do we go from here
I was alarmed when I first heard the buzz around the new translation two years ago. Perhaps I just thought that Zondervan would always allow purchase of the 1984 version. I don’t know. For me it’s more evidence of the time that we’re in. The Bible has to be written on our hearts (Jer 31:33) and we must pray fervent prayers that we will fulfill the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) with the integral translations that we have now.

-Zan

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012)

  1. While I am certainly no expert, what reading I have done on recent Zondervan translations such as the NIrV (Reader’s version, which I believe it was released in England before being released in the U.S.) and the TNIV leads me to think that Zondervan has a gender agenda that undermines the legitimacy of their translation efforts. I do not believe this was always the case, but has become so subsequent to the NIV 1984 translation.

    Too bad, since I generally trust the NIV ’84 version. I know that no one version is the final word on Scripture, but I think the ’84 version is as good as any. It seems to me that Zondervan decision may be a business strategy to get people to move to their later versions, which makes it a cynical strategy. Again, too bad.

    Good post.

  2. Rob I totally agree. It’s clear that without linguistic, biblical scholarship or manuscript motives it’s the work of the enemy to reconstruct Christianity to fit postmodern liberal agendas.

  3. Hello! I have read from the NIV for over 20 years, and struggled with the 2011 update when I started researching it. However, I’ve read from the NIV2011, and I’ve read some reviews which lead me to believe this update is an improvement. I’ve even been working on re-memorizing many of my old NIV memory verses! Consider that many modern translations of the Bible are more gender inclusive to reflect modern English. That’s part of what makes a good translation. One of my favorite theologians is Dr. D.A. Carson. He believes the Bible is God’s Word and is a member of the Gospel Coalition. I’ve heard that the man has the entire New Testament committed to memory – in New Testament Greek! When he does lectures and speaking engagements he reads from and endorses the updated NIV. I encourage you to check out some even-handed reviews such as Rod Decker’s: http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NIV2011evaluationJust.pdf and Dan Wallace’s: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/a-review-of-the-niv-2011-part-1-of-4/ I also encourage you to look back at the http://unlockingfemininity.com/ article and read the comments by someone named “Sue.” She is apparently a student of Greek, and has some wise insight on gender usage. One last person you could Google is Mark L. Strauss. He was on the NIV translation committee and seems to really love the Lord and God’s Word. He’s written some articles and books about Bible translation. If you’re like me, you might eventually experience a resurrection of the NIV! I’m sure that whatever version you read from, if translated by people who love God’s Word and are familiar with both the original and target languages, has the power to change your life! God Bless You!

    • Thanks for your post David. And thanks for the sources. You mentioned a top motivation for the 2011 version: “gender inclusive to reflect modern English”. I understand that in this age to address an audience of men and women we would use the noun “people” while earlier translations would use the term “all men”(just a high level example). But the reason why my simple explanation as a foot note to some would not work is because the usage of “people” vs “all men” is loaded. Some will read more into it and come to a conclusion of sexism. If the character of God is properly taught and a real relationship with God is established then there will be no misunderstanding and “all men” won’t be threatening. The job of the church is to address why it is threatening via biblical education and discipleship not by changing the word to fit people’s feelings.

  4. What do we do? Should we boycott Zondervan, a “Christian” publishing company probably much pervaded by its secular owners (News Corporation)?

    • I’m glad you use the word “boycott” because it helps me to clarify my own position. I have read multiple passages from the NIV 2011 without focusing on the issue of gender per se. Whereas the 1984 version really came alive for me — and is the basis of virtually all of my memorization of scripture — I don’t have the same reaction to the 2011 version. Of course, any publisher has what it considers to be good reasons for making changes. And, in turn, as a reader, I have my own admittedly personal and subjective reasons for choosing to use certain translations. I am not interested in the NIV 2011, so I don’t use it. I’m responding to Zondervan’s choices with my own.

    • I wouldn’t boycott them because it’s a spirit and not just the company itself (Ephesians 6:12). They also still publish some other great publications. I would pray, know the word and use another translation.

  5. Pingback: COMMENTARY: Time to Ditch the Beloved NIV Bible Translation | PeterVadala.com/blog

  6. Just wanted to mention a couple of troubles I’ve had with the 2011 NIV.

    Firstly, in de-sexing the pronouns, often they’ve also de-personalized them. Switching “The man who…” for “People who…”, etc. The problem I have with this is the idea that God’s laws and his will are directed at “all of y’all” or “all those people” rather than at YOU and ME.

    Secondly, maybe I’m an ignoramus, but I was totally unaware of the switchup until I was reading along in my nice, shiny new bible one day and a passage seemed a little off. I checked it with my old bible and was shocked to see it didn’t match, and then I flipped to the publishing information to see “Copyright 2011”. It was a rude awakening. Again, perhaps I live under a rock, but it really felt like this was done under-the-table, as it were.

    Add to the fact that suddenly the e-bible on my smartphone spontaneously got switched without my permission, and that it’s now impossible to find a 1984 NIV in the app store, and it really feels “off”.

    Well, now I have a new hobby: combing through thrift shops and second-hand bookstores for old ’84’s.

    Anyway, not a very well-thought-out post, just some spontaneous ramblings.

  7. Thanks for posting this. I didn’t realize the change until a Google search brought me to your blog. A lot of my memorizing was from the 1984 and when I look for those passages now to copy and share, the different wording doesn’t seem right to me. Sadly, BibleGateway no longer lists the NIV 1984; at least it’s not there this morning.

  8. Just joining this blog, I was sadly disappointed when I noticed that biblegateway.com had removed NIV1984’s version from its sight, As many of you, I too, had learned virtually all of my memory scriptures from the 1984 version. I actually have 2 copies of the 1984 version, and on the the LASB. The LASB is so worn, as my son used it in his first 2 years of a Christian based college. But, I purchased a “Trimline” one in mid 2006 and it’s still in pretty good shape. I am gratefull that I have them both, as I can use my “worn” LASB for the study notes at the bottom of each chapter. I have to agree with you, Zan, on the “sexism” part, and the newer version “seemingly” catering to this “corrupt generation” in which we live today. I don’t recall any scripture where Jesus was concerned about how society would take his use of the word “man”. I am a child of God, and feel that the use of the word “man” itself is inclusive of me, and I’m a female…with no hurt feelings.

    I also, would venture to agree with JCA as well, where Zondervan kind of did this under the table. I mean one night I’m reading the NIV1984 version on biblegateway.com, and the next night it’s gone. No fore warning or nothing; which I think was very unfair to many dedicated users of the sight who were confident in the 1984 version that has been a “spiritual growth” tool for us all.

    I appreciate all the input and the your thought provoking opinions on the matter

    TGBTG!!!!

    Lynn

    • Hi, Lynn! I hope you are doing well! I just wanted to point out that the Greek word anthropos, can be translated “human” or “man” depending on the context. So, it’s not really a matter of Jesus purposely using the English “man” to refer to the human race, it’s more about what translators decided to use. The NIV, IMHO, gets it right, because it follows 21st century English, which is its translation goal. I’ve read the NIV since 1984, and the more I read the update, the more I like it. In an earlier comment I left some links to some great reviews of this updated version. I’m also a big fan of the NASB, but I can’t help but see the updated NIV making God’s Word more clear, while still being God’s Word. Just my thoughts. God bless!

      • John, I appreciate your comment actually but there really is no more linguistic clarification necessary to reach our current generation. The barriers to belief are rooted more in the postmodern philosophy of this age and a lack of integrity of those that profess to be Christians. And the integrity is not meant for condemnation but a call to a deeper surrender to allow God to heal us so we can be used properly by God for his glory.

  9. By the way, the very night that I realized that the NIV1984 version was no longer on the biblegateway.com site, I contacted them through the “Contact Us” option inquiring about it, and asking if the would please put it back on the sight. I never got a reply. Though I have 2 copies of it, I only use the website because my eyesight is poor and on the computer I can change the size of the text. So sad!!! 😦

  10. Zan, I completely agree, “The barriers to belief are rooted more in the postmodern philosophy of this age and a lack of integrity of those that profess to be Christians.” I pray that, by the grace of God, I will live worthy of the calling I’ve received and represent with integrity the Lord Jesus Christ. I think the danger of being comfortable in whatever translation we decide to settle upon is stagnation. People used your same linguistic clarification argument when the NIV was first published in the late 70’s/early 80’s. “We don’t need that version, the Holy Spirit can speak through the KJV!” And I agree that He can. But I’d love to have a more accurate and clear translation if possible. I believe the NIV provides that. Another thing, the Bible is used, not just to reach our generation, but for discipleship as well. As a Christian, I appreciate a readable translation for my daily walk with the Lord. Sorry for sounding argumentative. I’m just afraid that as believers we can fall into the trap of spiritualizing personal taste. If you don’t like a particular translation that’s one thing. But when you say you’re grieved over the NIV update, and grieved over the homosexual thing – that’s putting the Bible I love and read in the same category as… do you see my point? I really enjoy your blog, and that recent post on homosexuality was spot on, by the way! God bless your continued endeavors for Him!!! And as your brother in Christ I still love you and bless you! 🙂

    • I understand what you mean. I’m actually a millennial so I am sensitive to my generation. I am not running off of just nostalgia and familiarity. Actually my favorite translation is NKJV because NIV1984 was missing a few verses. NIV1984 is my second favorite. And I agree that there are legitimate reasons for a new translation such as a 1) shift in the english language 2) new findings in biblical scholarship relating to Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic study 3) new manuscripts. But 1, 2, or 3 aren’t true.However, In the 400 year gap between KJV and NIV1984 all 3 are true. Where we went from early modern english to modern english (1), contribution by scholars like William albright (2) and found the dead sea scrolls beginning in the late 40s (3). John you are using a postmodern argument to clobber my accusation that a postmodern spirit is driving this translation. John we have to be prayerful, if at least 1 of the 3 were true it would merit this translation. A little leaven leavens the whole lump (Gal 5:9). The postmodernism spirit has us women offended by the use of “light of men” and soon men will be offended by “bride of christ”. I just want to add that I don’t hold all 3 criteria true to authoring a study bible. Where we can customize and attempt to speak to different souls is with a study bible.

    • John,
      Are you affiliated with Zondervan in any way? I mean you seem to be their (NIV 2011) public defender. Or do you really just love the new version? Just curious….

  11. I appreciate your very well-thought response. However, I believe that the three criteria you mentioned have been met. 1) There has been a shift in English language in the past 30 years – NIV translators referred to the Collins Bank of English to discover this. 2) New findings have been made, for example in Philippians when Paul says that Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Scholars have learned that this grasping refers to reaching for something you already posses. One example would be reaching for a tool that hangs on a tool belt that you’re wearing. This fits perfectly with the idea that Jesus already possessed divinity, but chose not to use it to his own advantage – which is how the updated NIV translates the term. 3) See the recent release of the NA28 for signs of new manuscripts. Nothing as big as the Dead Sea scrolls, but still worth looking into. I have two questions. First, what post-modern argument have I used? Second, are you really telling me that the updated NIV is not the Word of God, and its passages that I’ve studied, meditated upon, and memorized have been of no value, but have actually been detrimental to me? I just see too much good in this translation, to many people who are still ministered to through it (even the updated version). I’ve read too many positive reviews from godly scholars I respect to simply consider this version “a little leven.” I appreciate you being willing to converse with me about this. And, although we disagree on this issue I do appreciate your work on this blog!

  12. Hm seems like people stopped buying the bible that they wanted to sell so they made the old one illegal. Where are the people’s hearts do they want to make money, we are free will beings and now there trying to remove choice by taking away the truth.

    • Josh this is true. My local Christian books store told me that late 2012 Zondervan told them to ship all 1984 version back to them and they would send 2011 equivalents.

  13. Thank you for every other fantastic post. The place else may anyone get that type
    of information in such an ideal way of writing?
    I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at the search for such info.

  14. I am truly encouraged by the conversation between Zan and John. Patience, consideration and conviction on both sides. You are both to be commended. Your conversation has moved my thinking forward on this topic. Though I still agree with Zan, I have since realized the merit of John’s argument and realize I need to look into the translation more deeply. This isn’t a opinion I want to come to looking at this blog alone. The 1,2,3 litmus test of ‘do we need a new translation’ makes sense and has given me a structure for further investigation. Though I firmly believe Zondervan should have kept the 1984NIV available, I do believe that I need to go deeper in exploring the merits of the 2011 before I discount it. That being the case, this topic is this is firmly in my ‘disputable matters’ bucket, and I am enjoying the thoughtful discourse!
    Thank you for taking the time!

    • I personally believe that the NIV84 was/is the best Bible translation available. So sad to see it go. I will not use the NIV2011. I will continue to use my rugged, duct taped, NIV84 Bible as long as I can. For all App and online Bible use I will now move to back to the NKJV. Maybe we can get together and purchase the rights to the NIV84. Just at hgouth for someone with the energy, time and money to take this on. Zan?

      God Bless all you Bible lovers!!!!

  15. I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and finding kindred spirits who love the NIV84. Having read and memorized it for years, I was blindsided and dismayed by the sudden disappearance of NIV84 earlier this year. I searched extensively for any online resource/app still available and found two, with association to a third. I would love to share them with my brothers and sisters of like mind but am reluctant to “out” them for fear Zondervan will try to shut them down. I feel as though we NIV84 users have been driven underground. In the same spirit of concern for future availability, I bought >10 different print copies of NIV84 from CBD. I’m not interested in NIV 2011 because of the changes in meaning due to gender neutral passages. The Southern Baptist Convention also rejected it. Though I don’t like it, I can understand Zondervan placing their new version on store shelves. What I don’t understand is their campaign to confiscate and eradicate any trace of the prior version which for years was #1 in popularity. That didn’t happen when KJV was updated. It has happily coexisted alongside NKJV ever since, and readers of both versions are happy. Alas, I am sad.

    • Thanks for stopping by Carolyn. I am still amazed how God continues to use this very brief and simple post to rally and remind his end time believers. I am going to pray about expanding it but at the same time God is speaking already as a demonstration of the spirit’s power and not by my presentation (1 Cor 2:4-5). There really is no practical argument to introduce another English translation. Now Biblica is the copyright holder of NIV and they license it to Zondervan here in the USA. I don’t want to hunt down either company because they still produce a lot of good. What I advise is prayer and fasting so that God could turn their hearts or allow a concept of specially ordered Bibles. For example my favorite study bible is “Life in the spirit” but my favorite translation is NKJV. Life in the Spirit has only been printed in KJV and NIV1984 but now only KJV is available. I would love a NKJV Life in the Spirit Study Bible.

  16. We who serve the Lord Jesus on the front lines have little patients for internal corruptions behind our own lines. The TNIV is evidence enough the tree is now rotten and no longer credible or trustworthy. Does good fruit come from a bad tree? Newer NIV councils actually have women “biblical scholars” involved in the interpretation process. This is the ultimate rejection of Biblical male headship. 1 Corinthians 14 makes in clear in context that subjective prophetic messages are to be weighed and tested by “others”. The context later clarifies that women (who may know scripture) are not to weigh in on how the prophecy stands up against scripture. Paul says it would be shameful, and therefore women may clarify concerns and questions privately through their husband. Therefore I ask, if women are forbidden to weigh in on the interpretation of scripture in light of prophetic exhortation, then what hair-brained scholar thought it was a good idea to include a woman to participate in the textual translation of the Bible itself!? (weather she is a modern scholar or not!)

    Although unpopular, this cogent understanding of Biblical truth(in 1 Cor. 14) leads us who submit to Gods word to condemn the divisive independent and rebellious spirit that continues to corrupt the church through feminism. I have personally cross examined supposed “god fearing” professors and scholars on evangelical feminism, and they ultimately are reduced to a compromised view that cannot hold the scriptures as inerrant or Jesus as culturally transcendent. They are reduced to worshiping a pathetic wimpy Jesus who caved to cultural pressures concerning gender issues. They will give an account on that day (judgment day) for their wicked hearts yearn for the approval of men (lol or women in this case) and they lead many lay Christians astray. Perhaps I should add this caveat, I do love the unique insight and perspective of women and I more than any of my male friends seeks out and considers the insight of women. Women have a gift that is to be cherished by any man with half a brain, build her up and she will be your councillor! However I cannot forsake the Lord Jesus character or Biblical textual evidence. These matters are clear for the man who loves truth and patiently waits upon instruction from Gods word and Spirit.

    This issue of the 2011 NIV and the TNIV does grieve the Holy Spirit. These corrupted versions aught to be burned. (This is not to say there is not truth in them, however compromise eventually gets to the Throne room of God and in tern will lead to our lamp stands being removed in time as they were from the churches in Revelation.) They are driven by accommodation to the culture and cowardice on the part of the men who tolerate that Jezebel.
    As a 34 yr old male raised in a very liberal denomination in a liberal country (Canada), I was blown away when I actually read the scriptures and met the Lord, I can assure all of you with apostolic authority that we all must submit to the Word of God in all areas. Be warned, God is sending a powerful delusion for those who refuse to love the truth. Therefore, do not play Satan’s games with God’s word, “did God really say?” or as he did with the Lord himself when he quoted even the scriptures to him! This is evidence of how deep rooted our pagan Christianity is. If we do not repent of our pagan culture and sever the ungodly roots we will not be fruitful. However if we are grafted into the Godly tree we will bare fruit. Those who wish to accommodate some roots to the pagan tree are inevitably severing ourselves from the biblically cultured root (Romans 11).

    • Andrew, Seems that your entire stance on the position of women in the church is based, like anyone else’s, on your interpretation of Scripture. It falls at one point on a continuum of biblical doctrine regarding women. I’m sure there are extremes which fall outside of true, Bible Christianity. But there are many, many variations within that spectrum which are held by Bible-believing people. Paul told the women to remain silent in the churches, to ask their husbands at home. As I interpret this passage, this actually was a cultural exhortation. These women, who had been restricted to the “outer-courts” of worship were now thrust right in the middle with their husbands because of Jesus breaking down the gender barriers. They were without knowledge because the experience was all new to them. So they were disruptively asking their husbands questions during worship. Paul was telling them to stop interrupting the service and wait until they get home. The Gospel set women free on so many levels! Their even free to write doctrinal opinion in blogs such as this one, which I happen to enjoy by the way. That’s my interpretation of the 1Corinthian passage. It may differ from yours, but it’s not a Gospel deal-breaker. If we believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, Whose death and resurrection somehow purchased us from our slavery to sin and set us free, then we’re on the same page even with different interpretations about a woman’s place in church. The Scripture must be interpreted with the Holy Spirit, but also with a knowledge of the ancient languages and cultural backgrounds. Too many “teachers” have simply claimed that their own personal, emotional, ignorant opinions were the result of the Holy Spirit. Let’s not allow different ideas about non-cross, non-Gospel issues divide us!

      • John David, your opinion is irrelevant as is mine. However my perspective is not an opinion, or a stream or an interpretation. You may cloud your own beliefs by telling yourself it’s an interpretation or side issue, but this is not objectively the case concerning the textual evidence and the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. Of course this is for Christians who understand submission to God. I recommend you actually study this issue as I have. The egalitarian position is actually an attack on the Image of God as men and women are both made in the Image of God, yet made different. The Complementarian(Biblical) position does hold that men and women are equal in essential value but that function or role has no more Bering on this fact than any other role in life. The Biblical position is so self evident it’s amazing any honest thinking individual could hold otherwise. There is plenty of evidence men and women are different on so many levels, and contrary to popular brainwashing, gender differences are not due to socialization. Have some children and be an observant father. You will know. I will state again, to deny gender differences IS an attack on both men and women, its a rejection of the Historical grammatical method, common sense, the didactic portions of scripture, a rejection of Jesus behaviour concerning what he did and didn’t do, it’s a low view of Jesus moral character in suggesting he’d bow to cultural pressures, and ultimately it’s an attack on the Image of God. Did Jesus suddenly get wobbly knees when it came to marriage and gender issues? Give me a break! Jesus broke every false tradition that the scribes and pharisees set up! He corrected false understandings of God’s law. Was Jesus weak knee’d when he chose 12 men as his disciples? Or would YOU oh David have done better and picked 6 men and 6 women? So the Jesus you are suggesting would be inconsistent with the Jesus of the Bible who DID break cultural taboo’s with women that were ungodly. For example speaking to women like John 4 and the Samaritan woman at the well where his disciples were astonished but didn’t question him. This was very counter cultural in his day. Or letting the “unclean” woman wash his feet with perfume and her hair at Simon’s home, or the other woman who he let wash his feet with her tears, or the way he taught women, spent time with women, befriended women such as Mary and Martha etc! At no point did he commission them to go and preach the Gospel. If he did, then the teachings of the Apostles would be a blatant contradiction and the Bible would be guilty of doctrinal contradictions and incoherence. If I was to adopt the condescending view that “modern” and “enlightened” christians have who think they can go back and completely reinvent the text and it’s meaning, I would be adopting a contradictory self referential position that sets me up as judge and god over the text of scriptural meaning and application. It is a delusional attitude towards that which we will be judged someday by! Do not be tossed by every wind of teaching as James says. Do not adopt the Agnostic spirit that pervades the “bible colleges” of today which educate most Christians into idiocy and imbecility and the inability to think and KNOW the truth.

        Furthermore at no point did I suggest I had a problem with the existence of this blog. If the women on here were behaving in an unfashionable way, I would not even have commented! You do not know our position. This blog is not a formal church setting or ministry. Don’t you know that those of us who accept that women cannot preach or teach must also accept that in informal contexts men can learn from women such as Pricilla and Aquila who taught Apollos the way of God more adequately? Or that women can prophesy granted a head covering is worn? I love engaging women in conversations as long as they are not combative, argumentative or argue in such a way as to be unfeminine. Conversely us men must behave appropriately and respectfully in spirit as well.

        “If we believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, Whose death and resurrection somehow purchased us from our slavery to sin and set us free” John, you made this comment along side a long stream of thoughts’ suggesting indirectly that women or men are free. I agree. However the Cross is not a licence for disobedience or Lawlessness. The gospel is a free gift in that we do not obtain salvation by observing the Law. But the Law is not sin, the Law is not bad but life to the man who uses it correctly. We are under an obligation to obey God, his Laws and all the injunctions in the New covenant as well! It is NOT loving to lie to men and women concerning HOW God made them in his image. It is not loving to deceive and tell people what makes them feel good, yet will destroy their lives through destructive thought patterns. The new command which is really an old command is Love! And according to John Love delights in the truth. Stop being a follower John David. Stop telling them what you think sounds good. Speak the truth in Love. Stop using the ol’ “it’s cultural” argument which is a mindless mantra! Think about it man! EVERY passage in the Bible has a cultural context and application. However it is the presupposition that the Bible is God’s word, not just man’s word. And God’s word is timeless, culture less, transcendent! There is no cultural context in the New Testament that is culturally bound and non-transcendent, especially when it comes to something as foundational as the nature of marriage, gender and God’s image himself!

        Andrew

  17. Dear Zanspence.
    I apologize for our interruption into your blog post concerning NIV. From my end I have no further comments concerning our bunny trail! I really did enjoy your post and that’s why I commented, perhaps I ranted to much on area’s related that frustrated me. However, enjoyed your post, first one of yours I’d read. I do share your concerns over the new garbage NIV for other various reasons some of which I haven’t commented on. Keep up the interesting thoughts!
    Andrew

    • Andrew, you’ve presupposed many things about me in your earlier, lengthy reply. I’m much closer to complementarian than you realize. That’s the point I was making: Our beliefs on the matter exist on a continuum. It’s not worth the division that these side-issues cause. I’ve studied the issue and asked the Holy Spirit to speak to me, just as you have. I believe that I’m being led by the Spirit and the Word of God. You use fallacious reasoning when you put forth your beliefs and then argue that those who disagree either haven’t really studied or haven’t really listened to the Holy Spirit. All I want to know is what you believe about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’d also wonder if women at the church you attend are allowed to prophesy as long as their heads are covered in keeping with Paul, but that info ins’t necessary! 🙂 I agree Jesus was and is the Son of God, God with us, God in the flesh. And he wasn’t or isn’t wobbly on issues of marriage! His reminder of Genesis 2:24 (somewhere about there) is also the greatest argument for traditional marriage and AGAINST same-sex marriage that I can find.

      Yes Jesus did break with many traditions. The following activities Jesus engaged in were all against the cultural norm of his day:

      * Jesus taught both men and women

      * Jesus received praise/worship from both men and women

      * Jesus had male and female followers / disciples

      * Jesus’ female followers were often mentioned by name (a woman’s name being mentioned in a document from this part of the world and time period is almost non-existent)

      * Jesus reacted with kindness toward a woman who washed his feet and anointed them (“She has done a beautiful thing to me. Everywhere the Good News is preached, what she has done will be told as well.”)

      * Jesus scolded Martha for doing what was considered traditional “woman’s work” in the kitchen, while praising Mary for listening to and learning from him.

      * Jesus talked to the Samaritan women. This shocked even her. Jesus broke three barriers to speak to her:

      1. Race barrier – she was a Samaritan
      2. Gender barrier – she was a woman
      3. Moral barrier – she was a “sinner”

      Some of the following are controversial, but it has been argued that some women in the early church had roles that you would probably say should only be carried out by men:

      * Female apostle. Junia (Rom. 16:7)

      * Female prophets. Anna (Luke 2:36), Philip’s four prophesying daughters (Acts 21:9), the women who prophesied at Pentecost (Acts 2:4-21), the women in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:4-5; 14:31)

      * Female teachers. Priscilla (Acts 18:26)

      * Female evangelists and house-church leaders. Lydia (Acts 16:13-14,40); Apphia (Philem. 1-2); Nympha (Col. 4:15); Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11); Priscilla (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3); Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis (Rom. 16:12); Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:3)

      * Female deacons. Phoebe (Rom. 16:2)

      (OK, I do understand that “Junia” is debatable.) I completely agree that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave marriage guidelines to the early church. These transcend culture and tradition. For example, some cultures force the wife to be buried alive with her husband upon his death. In contrast, God’s Word calls for husbands to love their wives and be willing to lay their lives down for them. But some commands do literally apply to the culture to which Paul was writing, with secondary application to modern Christians. That doesn’t negate the Word of God. It just means we have to be vigilant to interpret Scripture in its cultural context with the Holy Spirit as our Helper.

      The only thing I’ll say about the NIV, updated or otherwise: I’d be terrified of calling God’s Word “garbage.” Andrew, I also have the Holy Spirit. He speaks to be through His Word. That Word sometimes manifests itself as the KJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB and even the NLT or NIV2011!

      Again, what do you say about the Gospel? That determines whether we are brothers in Christ. I suspect we are!

      Zanspence, I also apologize for my lengthy post! I enjoy your blog in general, and will try to get away from this one particular blog post!

    • HI Andrew. No apologies necessary. I like to connect through the Spirit and it is edifying and encouraging to hear from people who want to apply the Bible to all parts of their lives. I see that desire in you. I do disagree with your conclusion but I agree with your observation on the role of women in the Body of Christ. I agree with you that today’s society has lost the very distinct identity and role of women. We are not equal to men yet we are equally important to God. We can’t be fathers or husbands, we aren’t better than men and only a man can be the high priest in a home and we should submit to him. The loss of association of feminism to females and masculinity to males is not right and the deterioration of the opposite sex family is detrimental to society. Those are the observations.

      I cannot conclude that we don’t belong in church leadership or church headship. One of the judges of Israel was Deborah (Judges 4-5). Somehow this very patriarchal society (ancient Israel) submitted and respected her as the chosen vessel of God for judgement (…”And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” Judges 4:5, NKJV). And because the commander of Deborah’s Army, Barak, did not take his place whole heartily (Judges 4:8) the Lord had a woman, Jael, to conquer Sisera (Judges 4:21) instead which the Lord had originally told Barak to do (Judges 4:6-7). All of which Deborah prophesied: “So she said, ‘I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.'(Judges 4:9, NKJV).

      I don’t believe in replacement theology nor the the idea that we don’t have to read the Old Testament. God has always wanted to commune with us and to set up a holy government guided by his will. To be appointed a Judge is a big deal (1 Sammuel 8:6-9):

      But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

      Would God contradict himself and set up a woman as Judge in pre-monarch Israel and then say that we can’t talk in church service?: “If we give up on him, he does not give up—for there’s no way he can be false to himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, MSG)”

      1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are actually an attempt to sanctify the believers within the culture at the time. And there is a “meta-concept” to be grasped in the same way Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Peter 2:18 tells slaves to be obedient to their master. Instead of the first 2 scriptures being used to halt women from speaking and leadership and the latter 2 being used to support slavery they were meant to uphold the fruits of the Spirit within a culture because God cannot go against our free will : “A man’s heart plans his way,But the Lord directs his steps.”(Proverbs 16:9, NKJV). Though a woman could not explicitly learn Torah she could learn a lot in services but to keep order she should wait until she got home to ask questions through her husband. 1 Corinthians 14 is part of a larger paragraph on church order.

      Andrew, thanks for stopping by!

  18. Well lol, Dear Zanepence, you seemed open enough to discuss further so perhaps I’ll oblige a little further concerning this side tangent to the NIV topic seeing as you and John have both made comments in response to mine in my direction. If you’ll permit I’ll respond to some of John David’s concerns then yours in turn.

    Dear John 😉 , I have not made rash conclusions concerning you. You do not hold the position or views I do. This is evident enough by you even attempting to give scriptural evidence after asserting that there is biblical evidence opening the options of women Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists and Deacons.

    Aparently you do struggle to grasp the specific concepts in my “lengthy reply”! 😀 Have you no patients for understanding? I soundly established that this is no side issue. It is not central to the Gospel, however marriage and the image of God is not a “side-issue”. Yet you continue to claim that Biblical marriage/gender/image of God is a side issue. Therefore if you continue to display disregard for clear thinking I won’t have the patients to bother replying. Why would I try to reason with you if you cannot be reasonable by returning to the mire you originally asserted. I have not put forth my “beliefs” as you claim. I have reasoned with clarity and simple truth. You have obviously avoided the simple deduction I’ve used demonstrating what I predicted in my very first comment which(essentially) was that those who argue for no restrictions on women in ministry MUST have a low view of Jesus himself, and also the Apostolic writings. Very sad but true.

    You claimed “You use fallacious reasoning when you put forth your beliefs and then argue that those who disagree either haven’t really studied or haven’t really listened to the Holy Spirit.” To which I say give an example of my fallacious reasoning, don’t just make the assertion. For example, my responses were partly aimed at your application of Relativistic language concerning our ability to know scripture in your first reply to me. But you must understand the laws of logic and in particular the law of non-contradiction. Doctrinal truth concerning women in Authoritative ministry roles is an either or situation. Here is what you opened your comments to me with originally:
    “Andrew, Seems that your entire stance on the position of women in the church is based, like anyone else’s, on your interpretation of Scripture. It falls at one point on a continuum of biblical doctrine regarding women. I’m sure there are extremes which fall outside of true, Bible Christianity. But there are many, many variations within that spectrum which are held by Bible-believing people. Paul told the women to remain silent in the churches, to ask their husbands at home. As I interpret this passage, this actually was a cultural exhortation.”
    This language displays disregard for Truth, the law of non-contradiction and resembles Agnostic language and approach.
    -1. attempting to appeal to the subjective by relegating it as merely “your interpretation of Scripture”.
    -2. application of words “continuum”, “many variations” and “spectrum” are pluralistic and all attempts to make subjective resulting in a form of type 2 Agnosticism or Relativism.
    -3. appeal to the “cultural” is an over-contextualization with emphasis to remove God’s sovereignty IN the situation or that it was placed in the Bible.

    John said “I agree Jesus was and is the Son of God, God with us, God in the flesh. And he wasn’t or isn’t wobbly on issues of marriage! His reminder of Genesis 2:24 (somewhere about there) is also the greatest argument for traditional marriage and AGAINST same-sex marriage that I can find.”
    Amen John! Yes Jesus is God, Lord of Lords, lord of heaven and earth. Jesus came in the flesh, was raised on the third day and now sits at the right hand of God. I accept the Holy Bible only as final authority until God reveals himself in all his Glory. I hope that relieves your earlier concerns. John, you must understand that the Feminist movement did not intentionally drive towards Homosexuality, but in reality they have become one and the same thing. If you understand homosexuality is sin as the Bible clearly states, then understand we must reject Feminism to be consistent with this logic. The reasoning is simple. If both genders are the same genders then no genders are really genders. In this view consequently all genders are any genders and may have sexual activity with what ever gender. In this situation there would be no distinctions. So if Christians want to be reasonable and consistent they must hold that Christ did not remove all distinctions or differences. Women should still dress modestly not desiring their beauty to come primarily from outward adornment, and this is not a prohibition against such things just an admonition to show where the beauty should really be coming from. Likewise men must not display a hint of sexual immorality.

    John made these comments and Ill interject ok?
    * Jesus taught both men and women
    ~ Yes

    * Jesus received praise/worship from both men and women
    ~ Ya ok?

    * Jesus had male and female followers / disciples
    ~ Yes, however stated like this seems intended to gloss over the fact that the Lord specifically appointed 12 official disciples/apostles who were men only.

    * Jesus’ female followers were often mentioned by name (a woman’s name being mentioned in a document from this part of the world and time period is almost non-existent)
    ~ Yes and? Um, Greco-Roman culture is rather irrelevant, God did not choose “this part of the world” to impart the Law and the Commandments, He chose Israel. And in this case many women are mentioned and honored in the Bible. Are you trying to deceive through slight of hand here? The Bible man the Bible! Who cares about other cultures?

    * Jesus reacted with kindness toward a woman who washed his feet and anointed them (“She has done a beautiful thing to me. Everywhere the Good News is preached, what she has done will be told as well.”)
    ~ Yes

    * Jesus scolded Martha for doing what was considered traditional “woman’s work” in the kitchen, while praising Mary for listening to and learning from him.
    ~ No you have not represented the truth here. She was NOT scolded for doing “woman’s work” as you put it, she was scolded for neglecting the greater of two options AND trying to pull Mary away from the greater. As I said before John, be careful about that weird agenda that’s clouding your ability to see scripture for what it is.

    * Jesus talked to the Samaritan women. This shocked even her. Jesus broke three barriers to speak to her:
    ~ Yes

    1. Race barrier – she was a Samaritan
    2. Gender barrier – she was a woman
    3. Moral barrier – she was a “sinner”
    ~ Yes I agree that these barriers are problematic cultural constructs

    Some of the following are controversial, but it has been argued that some women in the early church had roles that you would probably say should only be carried out by men:
    ~ They are only “controversial” in the church because the western church is in recession and steeped in sin and compromise. The scriptures are clear and knowable.

    * Female apostle. Junia (Rom. 16:7)
    ~ No such thing. If it could be established that this actually was a female name and that this was the formal office of Apostle then we would have MANY clear contradictions doctrinally in the Bible. Furthermore as I’ve pointed out earlier that would make out the Apostles after Jesus to have been even more courageous than Jesus himself for appointing a female Apostle when Jesus didn’t appoint a single one!

    * Female prophets. Anna (Luke 2:36), Philip’s four prophesying daughters (Acts 21:9), the women who prophesied at Pentecost (Acts 2:4-21), the women in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:4-5; 14:31)
    ~ Actually Yes! Women can and do have the gift of prophesy. No one who holds my position has an issue with this unless they are a Secessionist. However both you and Zanepence seem to be unaware of the difference between Old and New Covenant prophesy and prophets. Prophesy is not the same thing as teaching or rambling monologues in the church setting. The spiritual gift of prophesy is a spontaneous Spirit motivated short message or insight for the purpose of exhortation of fellow believers. Many churches do not understand the difference.

    * Female teachers. Priscilla (Acts 18:26)
    ~ Uh no, this is ridiculous. My Dad taught me how to mow the lawn once, does that make him a teacher? The logic here is non-existent.

    * Female evangelists and house-church leaders. Lydia (Acts 16:13-14,40); Apphia (Philem. 1-2); Nympha (Col. 4:15); Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11); Priscilla (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3); Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis (Rom. 16:12); Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:3)
    ~ No, this is painful. If you’d read all these it will be evident to all the unbiased that this would be reading into the text an already held viewpoint. For example, Lydia had a church that met in her house…. yeah so what? And your point? There are many contingent possibilities, not one necessary conclusion. This amounts to fantasy. An argument from silence. Good job, oh by the way you know we will be judged some day on how we handled the Word of God? Not many of us should presume to be teachers for you will be judged more strictly. I would take a different tone with you John if you had phrased your points as questions to me.

    * Female deacons. Phoebe (Rom. 16:2)
    ~ Possible, though I’m doubtful of this position as it is so weakly supported. I hold to sound doctrine. As a role Deacon is not really a governing role and does not involve teaching or ex-positing scripture like the Elder role does, so in this sense it may be open to women without be in blatant conflict with other didactic passages. However Romans 16:1 & 2 say nothing to support the view that women can be deacons. It is exegetically clear that Paul is merely saying Phoebe was a great help to him.

    One last comment John, you said “But some commands do literally apply to the culture to which Paul was writing, with secondary application to modern Christians.” No John all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. John there is always an original context, nobody denies or debates this. God’s truth concerning the human condition and nature are irrespective of culture. We deal with the same issues today as they did then. “modernity” has NOTHING to do with it.
    I do consider you a brother and I do have a special love for you as my brother in Christ. I also have some serious concerns for you that you may run the race so as to make it to the end!

    Andrew

  19. Hi Zanespence!
    Thank you for your kindness despite our different views! You seem like a real sweetheart and I commend your desire also to know the truth and raise good questions in conversation! I think we do have a number of things in common, I heartily reject Replacement Theology as well. Seeing that you’re on my team on that issue in case you didn’t know I’ll add that I’ve found different forms of Replacement Theology in the spirit of this age which is the “spirit of lawlessness”, they have surfaced in the following; Antinomianism, Supersessionism, Fulfillment theology, Preterism, Covenant theology, Marcionism, Gnosticism.

    Ok, well I’m aware you will hold your view no matter what but you should know it’s not founded in scripture. Deborah is a testament to my position. Her whole ministry was to try to urge and support men to do their job (Barak in this case), NOT to supplant them. You will find with all the women who prophesied in the OT did it in a manner that was private and not public. Have you been to tell Dan? I have. I have seen the city gates, I have seen the Judges seat that a Judge would sit in to judge the people. Deborah, did NOT assume this roll but went out to the wilderness and the men had to go to her to get advice. I think you have a wrong picture of the OT prophetess. The OT office of prophet was very different then the OT phrophetess.
    You said this;
    “Somehow this very patriarchal society (ancient Israel) submitted and respected her as the chosen vessel of God for judgement”
    – Patriarchal yes
    – Submitted? The bible doesn’t use this loaded word. That you would employ it is highly suspicious. Would you perhaps be trying to justify having men submit to you? 😉
    – Respect? Yes sounds like she was worthy of respect! By the way I have asked women many times for prayer or a prophetic word if they had the gift. I have been blessed so many times by women of God with prophetic gifts. But this is not preaching, teaching, governance or authoritatively binding!??
    – Chosen vessel? You must be careful about reading into the text what is not there. It does not say she was a chosen vessel. It just says that she was a prophetess who was judging Israel at that time. That God gave her a message, and that she was to relay the message. If you’d compare with the other Judges it’s clear to say her anointing manifested in a different and good feminine way!
    You said this;
    “And because the commander of Deborah’s Army, Barak, did not take his place whole heartily” 🙂 Look, you are an intelligent lady, but I must say politely that this is laughable. Sorry. “take his place whole heartily”!? 😀
    Oh dear. Deborah’s ministry was to spur and encourage the men on to action by delivering a message from God! This is a period of Israel’s history that is characterized by “and each man did what was right in his own eyes”. We’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when good men of God are so lacking that women are being called upon to deliver the message that they should do their job! To protect, provide and love their wives. Defend the weak. Judge righteously.
    To think you can arbitrarily pull Deborah out of the situation and context is sloppy theology. She was the kind of woman a man would almost want in leadership, but she knew God’s order and obviously did not sit in the formal judges seat. She is a testament to the exact opposite of what a feminist Christian would want!

    You may hold your particular view concerning women in ministry, there is simply no clear case anywhere in support of it Biblically. It is not women’s job to exposit or teach scripture, be an elder, or govern the affairs of the church. This isn’t a bad thing, women just were not designed that way. When women assume these roles, it confuses younger generations of men/boys and destroys future generations.

    “Would God contradict himself and set up a woman as Judge in pre-monarch Israel and then say that we can’t talk in church service?: “If we give up on him, he does not give up—for there’s no way he can be false to himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, MSG)”
    – Woman judge/talk in church? Uh? Apple’s and Oranges. Two different things. I’m not sure what you’re thinking when we say talk in church. I don’t hold women zip their lip literally when they walk in a building door? I’ve already demonstrated the best understanding of 1 Cor. 14 in context. The other option would be even more restrictive to women, but yet would remove itself from the emediate context and that’s why I’m convinced the former is the better option.
    – The message is not a Bible and should be burned. However the verse you are trying to quote is pulled out of context and has nothing to do with how I suspect you’re trying to apply it.

    1 timothy 2 is clearly self evident. This is deductive logic. Scholars and men of God have always (2000 years to be sure) known what this passage means. Men who love their wives have understood what this means. Paul appeals to BEFORE the fall in reference to the creation account to root his theology. His conclusion is undeniable. I don’t see the problem. I invite you to offer a cogent alternative.
    As a side note, shouldn’t a Christian feminist be even a little timid, suspicious or embarrassed that for 2000 years the Holy Spirit has had men understand the meaning of 1 Tim2 but then suddenly a secular ungodly offshoot of Enlightenment humanism and of human rights appears in the form of Feminism and now, only now suddenly the church finally understands these passages differently? I think this is an embarrassing concession to worldliness. The word of God stands.

    Slaves and masters. Well as a Canadian we never had the mess that you folks had down there in the US. I’d consider myself a more objective observer when it comes to this topic. I think the Bible is clear in the OT and NT. Slavery is not the issue in the New Testament passages you quoted above. Submission and learning to live in the situation God has placed you is. Wives should submit to their husbands, children to parents, servants/slaves to masters etc. Of course I should state clearly that the offensiveness of American history is not the existence of slavery but racial subjugation. Many cultures had slavery that were not based on racial subjugation. Frankly I think its bullshit that everybody blames slavery instead of admitting that “yeah we were racist white Europeans who didn’t want to enslave our own kind”. Let’s call a spade a spade shall we? Biblical slavery was an even better situation from my understanding the 7th year a Jewish master had to set his Jewish slave free! When did that ever happen in your Country’s disgusting history?
    Anyway, in a weird way there is still slavery. We are slaves to whatever has mastered us! I kind of think people in prison could be thought of like slaves in a modern sense.

    Ill respond to one last thought you had. You said;
    “God cannot go against our free will : “A man’s heart plans his way,But the Lord directs his steps.”(Proverbs 16:9, NKJV)”
    While I do believe in free will God can and does “go against our free will”. Paul was completely on a pathway to persecute the church. His will was fully against the Christians. It was God and not by Paul’s will that Paul’s heart was changed. It was the sudden appearance of the Lord Jesus on the road that stopped Paul in his tracks leaving him to confess freely from that point onward “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God”.
    Acts 9:13-
    “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” KJV

    Clearly Paul was chosen to be with destiny of God’s accord irrespective of Paul’s will.

    Be blessed sister! Lot’s to think about, In Christ I do love you and want to encourage you. I don’t necessarily enjoy being confrontational, but I will when the Lord Jesus and the Holy Scriptures aught to be defended by less than constitutional approaches to the Bible by those claiming to follow it’s injunctions.

    Andrew

    • Hey Andrew,

      I would just like to let you know that all your arguments and words to zanspence and Mr. David ring true and pass the test to all ‘followers of the way’ of being inspired by and spoken through the spirit of Truth.

      And I’d like to point out that the correct true interpretation and understanding of the Bible/Scriptures 2000 years ago is exactly the same as it was 4000 or 5000 or even as it is today. God’s word never changes. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” Hebrews 13:8

  20. Guys I’m going to respond. I have to read through your posts soon. They are lengthy :). I will at least say that we are saying the same things in a lot of areas and I in no means meant to state that Deborah was emasculating Barak. Or that I think it’s okay for women to emasculate men. I made it clear that we aren’t fathers, husbands or the high priests. But Barak reluctantly fulfilled his calling and so God gave it to a woman. Which is a major theme today. Women are stepping in the gap spiritually and naturally. And this is unfortunate but it is true. My prayer is for God to restore the image of his creation with everyone in their proper roles.

  21. The real reason for the switch can be seen easily enough just by comparing GAL 5:19-21 in the two Bibles. Zondervan, CBD, Tyndale (and others) are preparing themselves for the day when it will be illegal to call a sinner a sinner. Political Correctness requires us to avoid words like homosexual, homosexuality etc. and make those verses so unrecognizable that they say something completely different than they were intended to say. It is sad that these people make their livlihood by it, but they will not stand up for the Word of God and record what it actually says.

  22. Hebrews 2:6-8 (Psalm 8:4-6) refers to Jesus. The third person “He” and “his” talks about Jesus though it also implies us. Why is NIV 2010 version used “them” and “their”, changed from NIV l984 ?!! So NIV 2010 is not only inaccurate, but erroneous.

  23. I have a Life application bible(NIV) and it doesn’t have a publishing date but it does list “1988,1989,1990” but it seems to be in referance to the Life Application and not the Niv version itself. I would like to know if it’s the 1984 niv. How do I find out?

    • Thanks for your question Kay, I would say to analyze the following:

      1. If you bought it before 2011 then you are good
      2. Check out John 1:4, if it ends with “mankind” then you have 2011, if it ends with “men” then you have 1984

  24. NIV lost my business. NWO satanists… i have read scripture verses from their new NIV translation – terrible. Now using NKJV. see ya’ NIV, you lost my business

  25. Pingback: Why did they eliminate the “old” NIV? (And the consequences of this action) | Clear Minded

  26. As a child of the 80’s I spent the first 28 years of my walk with Jesus using the NIV84. For a couple of reasons I’ve made the difficult jump to the ESV. Having an MDIV, spending a lot of time in the original languages and pastoring for 20 years I find the ESV the best combination of accuracy to Greek and Hebrew while still being readable (though not as readable as the NIV84). That said, be careful to not judge the hearts and motives of others. There are some brilliant lovers-of-Jesus that put together the new NIV. It’s ok if you don’t like it. You’ll have to switch one way or the other…so choose one that you find fit your theology and need for readability.

    • Thanks for your comment pastor, Happy Pastoral Appreciation month to you. I’m really not addressing any specific group of individuals that came up with this but the clear spirit of apostasy today that doesn’t believe that Bible Study and the Holy Spirit can convict believers.

      • CBD has the 84 NIV on sale in their most recent catalog. Unfortunately,while they last.
        I loved Pauls’ Oct. 13th post Heb 13:8.

  27. Hi. My name is Raymund. If anyone is interested, I have a 1984 NIV Bible for android platform (apk extension name). Please personally email me at i.am.raymund@gmail.com if you want me to share it with you. More than happy to do so for free.

    • Sorry all, but I can’t find any place in the internet to download the NIV 1984 version for android. Tecarta finally removed it from their list

  28. Zondervan did not much choice in switching to the 2011 version. The publishing rights to the niv are not owned by zondervan, they are owned by a company called Biblica. Biblica was responsible for making sure all the 84 versions were pulled from shelves so the 2011 would rein in it’s place.

  29. zanspence,
    Thanks for hosting this blog site. As a pastor I feel obligated to direct my flock with the most accurate, clear version of the Word of God. I love may versions for my studies: The KJV (what I was raised on), the NKJV, NASB, HCSB, and ESV for example. I chose to read from the NIV 84 while preaching because I felt it a great version that spoke the Word of God with clarity to the lost and unchurched. Every 2 to 3 years I buy a new “preaching Bible” because of the wear and tear of its predecessor. I recently bought what I thought was a beautiful, premium leather “preaching Bible.” When I preached my first sermon from it, my wife asked, “What version are you preaching from? It’s slightly different than mine.” I then discovered it was the newer version of the NIV. The more I read it versus my NIV 84, the more I disliked it. I, like many of the other posters found myself asking “Why did Zondervan change?” The ’84 is certainly still relevant in our American society. No recent archaeological findings have yielded older manuscripts that would cause a stir. So why the change? When Zondervan came out with the TNIV I was irked by it, but thought since we still had the ’84 I would continue using it, praying that the TNIV would die a violent death out of people not buying it. However now that the ’84 is not available I have a dilemma as a pastor. I have 6 or 7 copies of the ’84 along with many other versions, but what do I recommend to my parishioners? I can’t endorse the new NIV; it just doesn’t “feel right” in my spirit. So either I will begin to preach from the NASB, which is a great version, but not quite as fluid to young converts or the ESV. I would like to hear your thoughts as well as your bloggers on this. God bless you for doing kingdom work. Bo.

    • Praise the Lord! I continue to be amazed that over year later many find fellowship around this post. I believe the Lord has already pointed you in the right direction. ESV is a great version for young people. I gifted a lot of preteens with ESV study bibles.

    • “I can’t endorse the new NIV; it just doesn’t “feel right” in my spirit.” – Bo Hines

      Pastor Bo,

      Thank you for your comment posted 5 months ago. If you have the chance, please revisit the original zusings.com post and scroll down to my comment regarding the NIV84/11 discrepancy in Proverbs 9. I would love to get your take on that particular passage.

      And I want you to know that your words (quoted above) ministered to my spirit, as the Holy Spirit (“The Comforter”) showed me that this time spent researching the cause of my frustration (and postponing the completion of my own blog post) has not been spent in vain,

      All thanks and praise be to God for the original post (and its author) and all the subsequent comments…especially yours.

      Kevin

  30. these mornons have you memorize it… then they follow Satan and kill it. I would never buy another NIV bible as long as live. The NKJV is better anyway.

  31. I’m a relatively new blogger, and was unaware of the drastic discrepancies between the NIV 84 & NIV 11 until recently. I study the same NIV (84) Student Bible (copyright 1986) that I received as a graduation gift. However, on my blog, I typically copy+paste the NIV (11) from biblegateway.

    Check out the 84/11 discrepancy within Proverbs 9:3-6:

    First (NIV84): 3 She has sent out her maids, and she calls from the highest point in the city. (period) 4 “Let all who are simple come in here!” she says to those who lack judgment. 5 “Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. 6 Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk in the way of understanding.

    Now (NIV11) 3 She has sent out her servants, and she calls from the highest point of the city, (comma) 4 “Let all who are simple come to my house!” To those who have no sense she says, 5 “Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. 6 Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk in the way of insight.”

    I am frustrated and confused by the sentence structure discrepancy. This goes beyond pc gender neutralization. Is Wisdom calling from the highest point in the city in general – to all people below…or is she calling to those who lack judgement? (84) implies Wisdom calls to all below…AND to those who lack judgement she says “come in” AND “come eat”.

    (11) implies Wisdom calls to all below, “come in all you simple folks (down there).” AND to those (among the simple) who have no sense (which in my mind is different that lacking judgment)…those no-sense ones should come and eat. Or put another way…Hey, everyone come on in. And you “no-sense” folks…standing there looking like idiots…if you’re still undecided…there’s food, c’mon!

    In my particular case, I am blogging about learning to walk in the Spirit (vs the flesh). My intended audience is those (already saved) Christians who are seeking a more mature walk towards wisdom and understanding. “lacking judgment” will probably resonate with them more so than “having no sense”.

    And I was hoping to juxtapose the two invitations from Wisdom & Folly, such that I would also be using Proverbs 9:13-18:

    (84): 13 The woman Folly is loud. She is undisciplined and without knowledge.
    (11) 13 Folly is an unruly woman; she is simple and knows nothing.

    Once again, “undisciplined and without knowledge” would seem to resonate with the audience I am writing for (who are actually seeking to become more disciplined and more knowledgeable in their walk), better than “knowing nothing”.

    And further down…verse 16 is actually (word for word) the same as verse 4 and the comma (84) vs the period (11) creates yet another discrepancy in sentence structure requiring a “judgment” call.

    I thank you for your informative post, and for allowing me this lengthy observation/comment. And I now see that I have some catching up to do on the 84/11 issue/debate.

    Any clarification replies concerning the best interpretation of Proverbs 9 – perhaps going back to the Greek – are welcomed.

    Kevin

  32. The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the King James Bible! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, i.e., so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If I am to live for God, then I need an “every Word” Bible. We have it thank God, in the inspired King James Bible! The Bible is truth!

    In sharp contrast, modern Bibles are corrupt and; therefore, produce corrupt teachings. Just the fact that the NIV translators completely removed the critically important Word, “GODHEAD” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 is reason enough to run away from the NIV as fast as you can.

    That’s not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. The word “sodomite” is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit. I’m not kidding, go check for yourself! It’s not surprising that the word “sodomite” is completely gone, when you learn that an open unrepentant homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra (now deceased), was the chairman of the Old Testament committee. To no surprise, the homosexual community is excited about the new upcoming NIV2011. Why would any truly born-again believer who loves Jesus Christ use a corrupted Bible that caters to the homosexual agenda?

    According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) is the most popular Bible version today. What Zondervan Publishers won’t DARE tell you is that they are OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Doesn’t it seem odd to anyone with a brain and a love for Christ that the world’s largest Bible publisher (Zondervan) is owned by the same company, HarperCollins, that publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.”

  33. Pingback: One doctrine of evil men and maybe of Devils and Spirit if Lawnessness Exposed. | backupjesuswarnsblogcom

  34. I have used the NIV84 for a while and while understanding there were some 50-60 instances of major mistranslation it was a serviceable tool. The 2011 on the other hand has a vastly distinct agenda of the progressive movement in our country. So much has been changed from the original texts and HEBREW and Greek truths spoken I am convinced it is a vastly dangerous translation to use. Though hundreds of discrepancies, one in and of itself is a major problem. In Numbers 5:21 the word miscarried is inserted erroneously and with out any credibility with the original writings and language, and gives a credible argument that God is not anti abortion. This alone should leave the NIV2011 in the dumpster and burned.

  35. It’s 2015, I stumble upon this blog and still I am drawn to read about why the complete removal of our 1984 NIV. Man. There are words one can feel in one’s spirit that say more than a synonym. When I read the word “man” in the bible there is the feel of The Lord’s creating us as living beings, a feel of from His hand, and what that implies. So I do have my fixed 1984 NIV app. A chunky hard copy of the version that I keep in box as a treasure, and ” in case

  36. Continued…. I hit send by accident. … And “in case”. Lastly Psalm 72 in the NIV 2010 is quite different from NIV 1984. And that was a tell. Bless all who love Jesus. We’ve all got our flubs and He is gracious and wooing. Much love, Louise Black

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s