"New International Version (NIV) Bible," International Bible Society: http://www.ibs.org/niv/index.php

NIV Bible Translation Background Resources
Accuracy Defined & Illustrated:
An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions
        - To help others understand the NIV's passion for accuracy, Kenneth L. Barker explains the translation of 150 Scripture passages.
Background of the NIV Translation
        - The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by more than a 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
        - Presented here are the why and how of the NIV—a look behind the scenes by some of the original translators of the NIV. By Dr. Kenneth Barker [Editor]
The Committee on Bible Translation
        - For more than 30 years, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has labored to bring the Word of God to people in contemporary English. Since finishing the New International Version (NIV), the CBT has produced the New International Reader's Version (NIrV) for children and those with limited English skills, the NIV Study Bible, and the Today's New International Version. Those who serve on the CBT are highly esteemed scholars as well as translators.
The Balance of the NIV
        - What Makes a Good Translation

Summary of the NIV Bible

        More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the NIV. The scholars represented more than 20 denominations.
        In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.
        It took 10 years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.
        The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:

    * Initial Translation Team
    * Intermediate Editorial Committee
    * General Editorial Committee
    * Stylist and Critics
    * Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)
    * Final Stylistic Review
    * Executive Committee's Final Reading

        The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
        The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation.

By Dr. Kenneth Barker
 

"A Quick Guide to Bible Translations," Religious Resources Page:
       http://www.mtholyoke.edu/lits/library/guides/biblver.htm

New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

Erroll F. Rhodes, "A Concise History of the English Bible," American Bible Society:
       http://www.americanbible.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6145

The New International Version, sponsored by the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) and prepared by a committee of more than a hundred scholars representing a wide variety of Protestant denominations. Largely traditional and conservative, the translation aims at clarity and literary quality and is designed for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, and memorizing. A tentative edition of John was published in 1969, followed by the New Testament in 1973 and the complete Bible in 1978. It is one of the most popular translations of the Bible in the United States.

"New International Version," Bible Researcher.com : http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html

New International Version         New Testament, 1973. Edwin H. Palmer et al., The Holy Bible: New International Version. The New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. Revised 1978 and 1984.
        Bible, 1978. Edwin H. Palmer et al., The Holy Bible, New International Version: Containing the Old Testament and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Revised 1984.
        The New International Version (NIV) was a produced by a committee of scholars associated with various evangelical churches in America, who began work on the version in 1965. It was not a revision of any previously existing version, but an entirely new translation in idiomatic twentieth-century English.
         The New Testament translators took as their starting point the first and second editions of the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (see Aland Black Metzger Wikren 1966), but did not follow the UBS text in all places. Recently a Greek text which purports to give the readings adopted by the NIV committee has been published under the title A Reader's Greek New Testament (Zondervan, 2004). (1)
        The NIV was conceived as a version that would appeal to evangelicals. Members of the NIV committee were conscious of the reasons for conservative rejection of the Revised Standard Version, and so they deliberately avoided the "liberal" aspects of that version. The most objectionable aspect of the RSV was its policy of translating the Old Testament without any regard at all for the interpretations of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, and so the members of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation in 1968 stipulated in their Translator's Manual that "the translation shall reflect clearly the unity and harmony of the Spirit-inspired writings." (2) In many places one can see the practical difference which this rule made in the NIV.
        In Genesis 2:19 the NIV rendered the first verb as an English pluperfect: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man." The pluperfect "had formed" was used here so as to explicitly harmonize the verse with the account of creation given in chapter 1, in which the animals are created prior to the creation of man. This harmonistic rendering was intended to counter the liberal assertion that the story beginning at 2:4 is from a source which does not agree with the account in the first chapter. (3)
        The word almah in Isaiah 7:14 was rendered "virgin" in the NIV, in accordance with the interpretation of the word in the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. This contrasted with the RSV's rendering "young woman" in Isaiah 7:17, which was used instead of Matthew's "virgin" because the RSV translators believed that Matthew was simply mistaken about the meaning of the word. But this was not an option for the NIV translators, who as theological conservatives were bound to affirm that Matthew correctly interpreted the word.
        In Mark 4:31 there is good example of how apologetic arguments in defense of biblical inerrancy have caused the translators to adopt a linguistically unsound interpretation. Here instead of a literal rendering Jesus is represented as saying that the mustard seed is the "smallest seed you plant in the ground." Actually, he calls it the "smallest of all seeds on earth." Likewise in the parallel in Matthew 13:32 they have "the smallest of all your seeds," rather than "the smallest of all seeds." The NIV translators have adjusted the translation at these points so as to avoid an apparent contradiction between the biblical statement and known facts of modern science. But Jesus was merely using hyperbolic language here, not making a scientifically precise statement--the NIV's attempt to rescue Him from a technically incorrect statement is misguided.
        There is a very remarkable footnote on 1 Corinthians 11:4-7, which states that theses verses may be rendered thus: "Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair on her head dishonors her head--she is just like one of the 'shorn women.' If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair since he is the image and glory of God," etc. This note is well-nigh indefensible, and it seems to be an attempt to harmonize this passage with modern habits of dress. Paul's headcovering instruction is not being observed in most conservative churches today, who would like to think that their practices are strictly in accordance with Scripture. The alternative "translation" accommodates them. (4)
        Roman Catholic critics have pointed out that the NIV seems to show a Protestant bias in its treatment of the Greek word paradosis "tradition." The word is literally translated "tradition" in places where traditions are being criticized (e.g. Matthew 15:3, Colossians 2:8), but it is translated with "teachings" where traditions are being recommended (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). In this, there seems to be an avoidance of giving any positive connotation to the word "tradition." Kenneth Barker has explained that in the NIV, "When paradosis was used in a positive way to refer to the passing on of apostolic teachings, we did not want the reader to think of 'the tradition of the elders' (Matt. 15:2) or of traditions in general, but of apostolic teachings in particular. So when we believed that reference was to the latter, we usually rendered the term as 'teachings' to make that meaning clear to readers. All words must be contextually nuanced." (5) It does seem, however, that the NIV here reflects (and reinforces) a lack of appreciation for "tradition" in general among evangelicals, so that it has become a dirty word. Barker even avoids using the word "tradition" in a positive sense in his explanation. It may be doubted whether any reader would think that Paul was urging Christians to observe the 'the tradition of the elders' in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, because the context itself prevents this misunderstanding. A more literal translation, in which "tradition" is used in a positive sense in these places, would probably serve a good purpose.
        Though we may speak of an "evangelical" bias in the version, it is sometimes not very conservative in the sense of presenting interpretations associated with traditional theology. A notable example of the version's departure from the orthodox tradition of interpretation is its rendering of the word monogenes in John's Gospel (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18) and in his first Epistle (4:9). The NIV renders this word as "one and only." Traditionally, the word is understood to mean "only begotten," and in the history of Christian doctrine this form of words has some importance. The Nicene Creed, which continues to be used as a confession of faith in many churches, declares that Christ is "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds ... begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." Here the significance of the genes in monogenes is drawn out and explained in terms of an eternal generation of the Son, by virtue of which the Son shares the essential qualities of the Father. It expresses the ontological equality between the Father and the Son, and prevents the the Arian teaching that the Son is a heavenly subordinate "made" by the Father. He who is "begotten" shares the natural qualities of his begetter. (6) One need not enter into all the subtleties of ancient controversies about the Trinity in order to see that "only begotten" is an anthropomorphic metaphor designed to express an identity of nature between the Persons of the Godhead (like Father, like Son), and this traditional understanding of the word monogenes is amply supported by linguistic evidence. But the NIV excludes this understanding of the word, by rendering it as "one and only," minus the semantic component of "begotten." Richard Longenecker ventured to explain the thinking of the NIV committee in his article, "the One and Only Son," published in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation (IBS, 1991). After a highly tendentious presentation (7) of linguistic evidence supporting the NIV's minimalistic "one and only" rendering, Longenecker explains that the rendering "only begotten" is undesirable "particularly because it leaves open the possibility of an etymological emphasis on genes (the idea of generation)." He should have said "exegetical emphasis," because no reliance upon etymology is involved in recognizing the force of the genes in this compound. A scholar may, of course, choose to emphasize the "only," as Longenecker does, but the rendering "only begotten" does not prevent anyone from doing this. Longenecker prefers "one and only" not because his interpretation is prevented by "only begotten," but because it leaves open the possibility of seeing some significance in the "begotten," along the lines of the Nicene Creed. As if it were a prerogative of translators to present new interpretations in such a way that traditional interpretations are absolutely excluded. It may be that others of the committee did not have any such manipulation of the reader in mind. They do offer the rendering "Only Begotten" as an alternative in the margin. Perhaps some were not aware of any theological implications in the phrase, and simply balked at having an inkhorn word like "begotten" in their modern-language rendering of the text. But in any case, we cannot approve of Longenecker's argument. It is not that we expect all scholars and translators to agree with every word of the Nicene Creed. Rather, the point is, we do not expect "evangelical" translators to have such contempt for this landmark of orthodoxy that they would deliberately prevent readers from interpreting the Bible in line with its Christology. (8)
        There was some criticism of the NIV from conservatives who objected to the non-literal method of the translation in general. The moderate use of the so-called dynamic equivalence method of translation in the version involved a trade-off in which accuracy was sometimes sacrificed for the sake of readability. As Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary observed, "Readability seems to have been a higher priority than anything else" in the making of the NIV. (9) The erosion of accuracy was not as severe as in many modern versions which used this method of translation without restraint (e.g. the Good News Bible and the New Living Translation) but it did present problems for preachers and teachers who were trying to use the NIV while focusing on verbal details of the text. For instance, conservative teachers often like to point out that the word hilasterion (literally "propitiation") in the New Testament implies a certain doctrine of the atonement (God who is angry with sin must be made propitious toward us by the blood of Christ), but in the NIV this technical term was rendered rather loosely as "atoning sacrifice." (10) The concept of propitiation is made more difficult to teach because there is not a word for it in the NIV. And aside from such inconveniences to theological exposition, the idiomatic style seemed to make the sacred text less impressive and less memorable than most conservatives would prefer. As Professor Wallace said, "It is so readable that it has no memorable expressions, nothing that lingers in the mind. This is a serious problem for the NIV that is not always acknowledged." (11)
        Children's Bible, 1995. Ronald Youngblood, ed., Holy Bible: NIrV: New International Reader's Version: New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
        This revision of the New International Version was first proposed by Zondervan publishers in 1991, and a committee of the International Bible Society began work on it in 1992. In it the New International Version was revised down to a third-grade reading level. The New Testament appeared in 1995, and the complete Bible was published in the fall of 1996 as the text for Zondervan's "Kid's Bible." Gender-neutral language was regularly employed in the revision, though this fact was not mentioned in its marketing. When it was discovered, James Dobson and other evangelical leaders publicly opposed the version; and so the IBS published a revision, without the gender-neutral language, in the fall of 1998.
        Inclusive Language Edition, 1996. The Holy Bible: New International Version. Inclusive Language Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
        The appearance of this edition of the NIV in Great Britain provoked indignation among conservatives who were using the NIV, especially after the International Bible Society (owner of the NIV copyright) acknowledged that it had planned to publish it in America also, perhaps replacing older editions of the NIV. The gender-neutral alterations were done in accordance with gender-neutral language guidelines that were adopted by the NIV Committee on Bible Translation in 1992, and were highly objectionable to conservatives. A statement in the Preface that the translators believed "it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit" (p. vii) was hard to reconcile with conservative views of the Bible's verbal inspiration. The whole affair raised suspicions of liberal tendencies in the International Bible Society. Embarrassed and under heavy pressure from conservative groups, the IBS in 1997 announced that the "inclusive language" edition would not be published in America under the name, "New International Version," and that it would in the future continue to publish the NIV of 1984 unchanged.
        Today's New International Version, 2002. The New Testament: Today's New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
         On Jan 28, 2002 the International Bible Society announced the publication of this third gender-neutral revision of the New International Version, and distributed advance review copies at the Christian Booksellers Association annual convention. Further information.

"New International Version," Wikipedia com:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

        The New International Version (NIV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible which is the most popular of the modern translations of the Bible made in the twentieth century, and is exclusively published by Zondervan.
        Work on the NIV began in 1965, sponsored by the New York Bible Society, which is today the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society. The New Testament was set forth in 1973, the Old Testament and full NIV Bible in 1978, and a modified edition in 1984.
        The translation took more than ten years and involved 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of theologians includes over 20 different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and many more.
         The translation has become the most popular modern English translation of the Bible, having sold more than 215 million copies worldwide. It is especially popular among American Evangelicals, though many Fundamentalists strongly oppose it and some claim it to be a heretical counterfeit; see King-James-Only Movement. It is considered by many Christians a good, modern supplement to more historic bible translations like the King James Version, or even as more accurate (since it draws from a wider range of source texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls).

        1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
        6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God -- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
        15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE         The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.
        Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
        How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went on to one of the General Editorial committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough version. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.
        All of this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one.
        From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.
        In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.
        The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.
        A sensitive feeling for the style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly, the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice - once before and once after the last major revision - and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translations were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people - young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.
        Concern for clear and natural English - that the New International Version should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic, contemporary but not dated - motivated the translators and consultants. At the same time, they tried to reflect the differing styles of the biblical writer. In view of the international use of English, the translators sought to avoid obvious Americanisms on the one hand and obvious Anglicisms on the other. A British edition reflects the comparatively few differences of significant idiom and of spelling.
         As for the traditional pronouns "thou," "thee" and "thine" in references to the Deity, the translators judged that to use the archaisms (along with old verb forms such as "doest," "wouldest" and "hadst") would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.
        For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a varient Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variant within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions - the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.
        The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testaments textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testaments were used.
        There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible. In 1973 the New Testament in the New International Version was published. Since then, suggestions for corrections and revisions have been received from various sources. The Committee on Bible Translation carefully considered the suggestions and adopted a number of them. These are incorporated in the first printing of the entire Bible.
        As in other ancient documents, the precise meaning of the biblical texts is something uncertain. This is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts than with the Greek text. Although archaeological and linguistic discoveries in this century aid in understanding difficult passages, some uncertainties remain. The more significant of these have been called to the reader's attention in the footnotes.
        In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "Lord" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign Lord."
        Because for most readers today the phrase "the Lord of hosts" and "God of hosts" have little meaning, this version renders them "the Lord Almighty" and "God Almighty." These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, "he who is sovereign over all the 'hosts' (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the 'hosts' (armies) of Israel." For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth ("hosts" or "Almighty") and Shaddai (which can also be translated "Almighty"), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered "the Lord, the Lord Almighty."
        As for other proper nouns, the familiar spellings of the King James Version are generally retained. Names traditionally spelled with "ch," except where it is final, are usually spelled in this translation with "k" or "c," since the biblical languages do not have the sound that "ch" frequently indicates in English - for example, in chant. For well-known name such as Zechariah, however, the traditional spelling has been retained. Variation in the spelling of names in the original languages has usually not been indicated. Where a person or place has two or more different names in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts, the more familiar one has generally been used, with footnotes where needed.
        To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. If there was uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets. Also for the sake of clarity or style, nouns, including some proper nouns, are sometimes substituted for pronouns, and vice versa. And though the Hebrew writers often shifted back and forth between first, second and third personal pronouns without change of antecedent, this translation often makes them uniform, in accordance with English style and without the use of footnotes.
        Poetical passages are printed as poetry, that is, with indentation of lines and with separate stanzas. These are generally designed to reflect the structure of Hebrew poetry. The poetry is normally characterized by parallelism in balanced lines. Most of the poetry in the Bible is in the Old Testament, and scholars differ regarding the scansion of Hebrew lines. The translators determined the stanza divisions for the most part by analysis of the subject matter. The stanzas therefore serve as poetic paragraphs.
        As an aid to the reader, italicized sectional headings are inserted in most of the books. They are not to be regarded as part of the NIV text, are not for oral reading, and are not intended to dictate the interpretation of the sections they head.
        The footnotes in this version are of several kinds, most of which need no explanation. Those giving alternative translations begin with "Or" and generally introduce the alternative with the last word preceding it in the text, except when it is a single-word alternative; in poetry quoted in a footnote a slant mark indicates a line division. Footnotes introduced by "Or" do not have uniform significance. In some cases two possible translations were considered to have about equal validity. In other cases, though the translators were convinced that the translation in the text was correct, they judged that another interpretation was possible and of sufficient importance to be represented in a footnote.
        In the New Testament, footnotes that refer to uncertainty regarding the original text are introduced by "Some manuscripts" or similar expressions. In the Old Testament, evidence for the reading chosen is given first and evidence for the alternative is added after a semicolon (for example: Septuagint; Hebrew father). In such notes the term "Hebrew" refers to the Masoretic Text.
        It should be noted that minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, articles of clothing and jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be identified with precision. Also measures of capacity in the biblical period are particularly uncertain (see the table of weights and measures following the text).
        Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task. We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many into a better understanding of the Holy Scriptures and fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures so faithfully testify.

The Committee on Bible Translation
June 1978
Revised August 1983

        This translation unquestionably "broke new ground" with its release. The extensive detail to every aspect of the translation process was a first for the English Bible. The cost of production was another record, which hopefully will never be matched. The methodology represents a mixture of the FE and DE methods. Although arguments exist over where to place it on a spectrum between the two methods, my tendency is to position it just slightly off center toward the FE side of the spectrum. It is concerned with natural English expression for readability and ease of understanding, but is also concerned with sufficient formal language style in order to make it suitable for public worship usage. Its expressed objective is wide ranging, all the way from a study Bible to a pew Bible. This is both a strength and a weakness. By shooting for such a wide ranging target, a "shotgun" approach, the translation weakens its contribution to more narrowly defined objectives, e.g., detailed study of scripture, or formal language pew Bible. Its popularity and wide-spread usage is unquestionable. Yet, the NRSV is giving it a "run for its money" at the popularity level. This has -- in part -- prompted some of the spin offs of the NIV, such as the Children's Bible (1995), the Inclusive Language Edition (1996), and the Today's New International Version (2002).
        Some of the criticism of the NIV, that is mentioned above in the Bible Researcher article from very conservative circles, is unjustified. This, simply because of an inadequate understanding of the process of translation, and of Bible translation in particular, along with an inadequate view of the inspiration of scripture. The two viewpoints, however, tend to go together; one will contribute to the other. A potentially greater problem for the translation is the limited theological range of the massive translation committee. Comprised almost entirely of evangelical scholars, the translation is vulnerable to tinges of "sectarian" influence. This is despite the representation of 20 denominations in the translation process; but, these representatives came from evangelical groups. Other, more recent English translations have sought to avoid this with committees comprised of the full range of Protestant groups, along with Roman Catholic scholars, and sometimes, even American Orthodox Church scholars.
        But in the final analysis, the NIV remains one of the best "all purpose" English translations on the market today. It has set an important standard for English Bible translation with its approach; attention to minute detail in Bible translation at the level of the NIV will be hard to achieve.

Bibliography

"A Quick Guide to Bible Translations," Religious Resources Page:  http://www.mtholyoke.edu/lits/library/guides/biblver.htm

Erroll F. Rhodes, "A Concise History of the English Bible," American Bible Society: http://www.americanbible.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6145

"New International Version," Bible Researcher.com : http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html

"New International Version," Wikipedia com:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

Created by   a division of---  All rights reserved©