The New International Version remains the bestselling Bible translation, outranking the King James Version and the New Living Translation in both dollar and unit sales, according to the latest best seller's report from the Association for Christian Retail. Meanwhile, NIV publisher Zondervan reports that more than 11 million digital and print copies of the Bible translation have been sold worldwide.The best seller's April 2013 list from the Association for Christian Retail, commonly referred to as the CBA, ranks the NIV, KJV and the NLT as the three leaders, respectively, among the 10 ranked predominantly English Bible translations. Only one non-English translation appears on the list the American Bible Society's Reina Valera 1960, a popular Spanish Bible.Standout among the list, however, is the NIV, which has more than 450 million copies in print. The NIV, reportedly the first major translation to depart from the traditional KJV, debuted almost 35 years ago and has become the most read modern English Bible translation, according to Zondervan, one of the leading Christian publishers.read more: http://www.christianpost.com/news/niv-more-popular-than-kjv-nlt-bibles-11-million-copies-sold-worldwide-92671/
_________________SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
This is disturbing but everything that we see going on in todays culture and church culture is disturbing. "....the Bible, an ancient manuscript that keeps getting makeovers for new audiences. Bible sales represent a whopping marketestimated between $425 million (by Harper San Francisco) and $609 million (by Zondervan), with relatively stable sales. Paul Caminiti, v-p and publisher for Bibles at Zondervanwhich accounts for one out of every two Bibles soldnotes, "Although there was a significant spike in Bible sales following 9/11, the Bible market as a whole has remained relatively the same."http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20061030/16711-not-your-mother-s-bible.html
This article doesn't talk about what the publishers of the updated NIV have done. In 2011 they released an updated version of the 1984 translation. The strategy they've employed in the hopes that the 2011 version doesn't meet the same fate as the TNIV is to pull the rights of all publishers and merchants to sell the NIV1984. They have even pulled the '84 version off of Bible apps. If you have the YouVersion Bible app on your smart phone or tablet you'll notice that the NIV bible on the app is now the 2011 updated version. Also, you won't be able to find the 1984 version of the NIV in any merchant's Bible store. They have recalled those and replaced them with the 2011 version.
_________________SI Moderator - Jeremy Hulsey
I wonder if the 84 version will be able to go open source? I am actually using the 2011 NIV right now and strangely do enjoy it alot.But for word by word studying still using KJV at times.
Probably not for a long time. Pulling the 84 version was a marketing tactic designed to increase sales of the new version. Here is a fair review showing the strengths and the weaknesses of the new version.One good thing is they stopped using the term 'sinful nature' in Romans 7:5. That's probably the best example of a mis-translation messing up doctrine that there ever was.Here is the link to that review:http://www.joshhunt.com/mail446.htm
RE:///One good thing is they stopped using the term 'sinful nature' in Romans 7:5. That's probably the best example of a mis-translation messing up doctrine that there ever was.///This is true!!'The NIV reconsidered A fresh look at a popular translation' 1990 Kerugma,inc by Earl Radmacher BA and MA from Bob Jones University and ThM and ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and Zane Hodges BA degree from Wheaton and ThM from Dallas Theological Seminaryp.113-117VERSE 3In this verse we meet, for the first time in Romans 8, a typical NIV interpretive translation. The Greek word for "flesh" becomes "sinful nature," as it does also in Romans 7:5, 18, 25 and in many of the verses following this one (8:5, 8, 9, 12, 13). yet it is not handled this way consistently, as we shall see. The result of the NIV's freewheeling treatment of this basic Greek word is confusion compounded by confusion!Is it in pursuit of "clarity" and "intelligibility" that the NIV opts for "sinful nature" rather than the more literal, and familiar, rendering "flesh"? If so, it is more than doubtful that actual clarity has been achieved. What indeed does the term "sinful nature" signify? Since the English word "nature" has more than one basic meaning, which one should the English reader understand here? Of themeanings offered by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969 edition), we have at least these options:1. The intrinsic characteristics and qualities of a person or thing.7. Theology. Man's natural state, as distinguished from the state of grace.9. The aggregate of a person's instincts, penchants, and preferences: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" (Gertrude Stein).10a. A particular kind of individual character or disposition; temperament: "In spite of her small vanities, Margaret had a sweet and pious nature" (Louisa May Alcott).11. The natural or real aspect of a person, place or thing. (All italics are as in the dictionary.)No knowledgeable user of contemporary English can believe that the word "nature" is self-explanatory in a phrase like "sinful nature." The very reverse is the case.We might ask whether the word "nature," in connection with "sinful," refers to some intrinsic feature of man's makeup, or does it simply refer to an aggregate of characteristics which he displays? Does it reflect his "temperament" only, or is it something metaphysical in its essence?How are we supposed to know the answer to any of these questions when we read the NIV phrase "sinful nature"? And why didn't the NIV leave well enough alone and simply translate the Greek word by "flesh," as did the KJV and NKJV? Such biblical/theological terms are better left for expositors to explain.Nevertheless, we get the NIV's commentary on the Greek word "flesh," but before the light can dawn for us we must have a commentary on the commentary! The NIV's adoption of the phrase "sinful nature" is conspicuously ill-advised. It does not seem to have been carfully thought through at all.Additionally, we might ask whether the NIV is precisely on target when it reads, in this verse, as follows:For what the law was powerless to do in that [it was weakened by the sinful nature].Compare with this the NKJV:For what the law could not do in that [it was weak through the flesh].The two renderings are not quite identical. The phrase "it was weakened by the sinful nature [= flesh]" might not mean exactly the same thing as "it was weak through the flesh." The NIV leaves the impression that, somehow, man's sinful nature sapped the law of strength which it otherwise possessed, as when one might say, "The man was weakened by his exertions." But does Paul mean to imply this?Probably not. Ther is nothing in paul's thought about the law, either in Romans or elsewhere, to suggest that the law in some way became weaker than it once was. Rather, the law had an inherent incapacity to meet man's need because it had nothing to offer the sinner by way of deliverance from his sinful condition. When Paul says that "the law was weak through the flesh," he means to indicate that the law was ineffectual in coping with man's sinful condition.The NIV adoption of a passive verb phrase in English to render the active verb phrase in Greek is certainly not a case where "faithful communication...[demands]...frequent modifications in sentence structure". On the contrary, it is an undesirable "modification" and potentially misleading.Finally, the NIV concludes verse 3 as follows:And so he condemned sin in [sinful man].But the words "sinful man" translate exactly the same Greek ward (sarx, "flesh") that the NIV rendered "sinful nature" earlier in the verse. Thus the underlying verbal connection between "sinful nature" and "sinful man" is lost in the NIV, except for the word "sinful" which is a paraphrase to begin with.In the previous sentence in this verse we also read "sinful man" where the NIV translates "by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man." This time, however, there is a word for "sin" in the Greek text which, more literally, reads: "in the likeness of (the) flesh of sin." The NKJV renders: "in the likeness of sinful flesh."Observe, then, the NIV treatment of three uses of "flesh" in verse 3:NKJVthrough the fleshthe likeness of sinful fleshsin in the fleshNIVby the sinful naturethe likeness of sinful mansin in sinful manWhatever else may be said, it is clear that the NIV is either correct in its interpretive renderings, or it is mistaken and misleading. unlike the NKJV, which does not attempt to interpret the word "flesh" for its readers, the NIV does so and thus asks the readership here, as in so many other places, to trust the expository acument of its translators and editors.But is the NIV really accurate here? And can the reader in fact pick up the obvious Pauline tie between "flesh...flesh...flesh"? Of course he cannot, and the loss of this element in the intended Pauline meaning must be compensated for by some other significant gain from the NIV renderings.But the gains are dubious at best. At worst, they are not gains at all, but losses. let us consider the issues involved.The reason Paul likes the word "flesh" as a term for describing man's inward bent toward evil is because he sees this bent as situated in man's physical being--in his body. This is quite clear from Romans 7:22-25. To erase the word "flesh" from the text is to destory this implicity pauline link with man's physical experience.Moreover, the phrase "in the likeness of sinful man' misses the fact that Paul is indicating that the incarnation of the Son was indeed physical, or bodily, but that it was also sinless. It was"in the likeness of sinful flesh" that He came. That is, He came in flesh which was not sinful. As Paul would later say, He was "manifest in flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16).but the statement of teh NIV that He came "in the likeness of sinful man" loses the direct implication of physicality found in the word "flesh." yet, in first-century Christianity, this was an important issue since some intellectual and religious currents of thought resisted the notion of a divine being actually living in physical flesh (see 1 John 4:2,3; 2 John 7).Moreover, the NIV follows this use of "sinful man" with a second use of the same expression to translate the simple word "flesh." But does Paul mean only that "sin in sinful man" is condemned, or does he mean to affirm that "sin in man's physical being" is condemned? The latter is almost certainly his intended thought. Paul thus anticipates our ultimate freedom from a physical body in which sin dwells. And, as he will say later in the chapter, "the glorious freedom of the children of God," in a coming day, will be the model for the freedom of all creation from "its bondage to decay" (verse 21).Thus the loose, paraphrasing way the NIV treats the Greek word for "flesh" in verse 3, fails to accomplish any significant clarification. Instead, the NIV reader is left at a serious disadvantage when it comes to entering more fully into the Pauline concepts expressed in this verse.The NIV's showing in Romans 8:3 is deeply disturbing to those who wish their translation to give them careful and reliable guidance into the original author's outlook and perspective.
Good morning,Greg,This is an artical that was printed ( stated )in the Hattiesburg American news paper5-5-01,..and I kept the artical." Until the 1950's,the King James Bible was the only Bible in wide use among Protestants,who tend to dominate the Bible-buying market.Since then the new Verizon's have been produced to meet the demand for modernized scriptures.In the Gallup Poll 54% owned King James,followed by 15% New International "...etc. ...( I kept this note in my Bible,I don' know what else was wrote as I quit copying at that point. )My comments on this is,...I use The King James and I realize others may not feel the same as I do,...but I was concerned that as time goes on,men have lost their fear of God,and may change the scripture more and more.Just thought I'd share.elizabeth
Sister,Agreed we must be careful to ensure that the Scriptures are not being twisted or changed in anyway. Also the greed of men is sadly out of control even amongst christian ministries where they will do these for financial gain as a goal.I believe there are many modern versions that believers can read and use and the Holy Spirit can quicken the word to them greatly through them. James 1:22 comes to mind that it is much important to simply obey verses and walk in true Christian living then knowing exact tenses or greek words in the NT.The King James is very hard for the normal reader today to understand. Remnant believers where persecuted throughout the ages to get the scriptures into the plain peoples speech and terms. I believe the Lord spoke in very basic greek for this reason also.
Miles Smith, one of these who worked on the KJV and wrote its preface: "And in what sort did these [the translators} assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an a,rm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in Him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord... ...The translators of the KJV labored according to the rules set forth by John Purvey, secretary to John Wyckliffe, translator of the first English Bible: "A translator hath great need to study well the sense . . . and then also he hath need to live a clean life and be full devout in prayers, ... that the Holy Spirit, author of all wisdom and knowledge and truth, dress him for his work and suffer him not to err. By this manner"men can come to true and clear translating, and true understanding of holy writ." Probably the scholarship and devotional life of Lancelot Andrewes, chairman of one of the translation companies of the KJV, exceeded those of many of his co-workers. True, he did not have the earliest and, perhaps, the best manuscripts to work with, nor the advantage of the Twentieth Century "linguistic researches" as have the translators of the NEB. He did know six ancient and fifteen modern languages. But there was something else about Andrewes: His " 'life was a life of prayer'; a great part of five hours of every day, did he spend in prayer and devotion to God." One cannot but wonder about the complete qualifications of men who "represent more or less" only "relative conservatism in theology" to translate the Scripture. Men of such belief are not known to give themselves to prayer, the only means whereby they may be filled with the Spirit of God who alone can give the "true understanding of holy writ." How then, for all their scholarship, can they be able "to grasp and convey the spirit of the original"?from a Bread of Life Archive
This is a statement from the soon coming Principles book at www.gospelfellowships.net that I have been working on with other brethren:--Some Christians will divide over Bible translations preferring the KJV or a specific translation. Though there are some better literal translations of the Bible we still can benefit from many different versions even paraphrases to help contextualize the Scriptures in modern vernacular. We must take this to the Lord and not make it a point of division to separate over translations and if we hold one preferably above others we must do this first to the Lord and not cause other brothers to stumble by causing division and confusion. It is better to be in obedience to what the translation is saying rather than simply saying it is better. In this case we can deceive ourselves by reading and not obeying (see James 1:22)