What's Wrong with the 2011 New International Version of the Bible?

Since 1984, many believers have welcomed a translation that is considered the most readable literal Bible translation available.  This translation is the New International Version (NIV).  Recently a newer and updated version of this translation has been made available, which ultimately means the imminent end of the current 1984 edition.  Those who want to continue using the NIV will experience a translation that, although bearing the same name, is vastly different.

Gary Ledbetter, a respected leader serving in the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, writes, "I personally cannot recommend the 2011 NIV to anyone because the committee has paraphrased the words of Scripture with no apparent compelling reason in most cases."  I concur and the following summarizes the reasons why (as argued by Ledbetter in an article appearing in the Southern Baptist Texan, October 3, 2011):

1.  The translation closely parallels the unsuccessful Today's New International Version (TNIV)

The TNIV, an unsuccessful attempt at updating the 1984 NIV, re-translated thousands of verses from the NIV with a gender-neutral twist.  "Son" became "child," "father" became "parent," "he" became "they," etc.  The changes were too much for conservative believers to handle, and the TNIV was soon off the market.  Ledbetter notes that "the 2011 NIV is very much (75 percent by one count) the same as the TNIV." 

2.  The translation category has changed without changing the name

Bible users have a plethora of translations to choose from.  Ledbetter divides translations into three distinct categories: very literal (KJV, NASB, ESV), as literal as possible while maintaining easy readability (NIV, HCSB), and paraphrased (The Message, NLT).  The 1984 NIV falls into the second category--as literal as possible while maintaining easy readability.  It "spans the gap" between the first category and third category.  The 2011 NIV, however, includes quite a bit more paraphrasing than the 1984.  Here are two examples:

• Proverbs 15:5 and 1 Samuel 18:2 change the word "father" to "parent" and "family" respectively.  The result of such a translation misses the point that the family residence was actually the "father's house."  He was the householder.
• Psalm 8:4 changes "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him" to "what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?" thereby interpreting out any kind of Messianic understanding of the verse.

3.   The translation uses poor grammar, making the Bible appear less serious

Ledbetter notes that "one of the several philosophical lines the committee crossed was to decide that the loathsome singular/plural confusion was good English."  A good example is found in John 14:23.  The 1984 NIV decided that the English grammar needed no revision, but the 2011 version translates the verse: "Jesus replied, "Anyone (singular) who loves (singular) me will obey my teaching.  My father will love them (plural) and we will come to them (plural) and make our home with them (plural)."  This kind of grammar, Ledbetter notes, "makes the Bible seem less serious, and it is not what the biblical manuscripts say.  Gone are the days when reading the Bible will improve our grammar, I suppose."

So how should a conservative Bible student respond?

These are, in the very least, three reasons why the 2011 NIV can no longer be considered a viable "literal" translation of the Bible.  The translation falls more into Ledbetter's "paraphrase" category. 

Ledbetter graciously notes that the 2011 NIV is not a "wicked or heretical Bible," to which I agree.  The committee is made up of respected conservative scholars, but there are some questionable issues concerning many of the choices they made in their translation.  I advise anyone who uses the NIV to consider trying out a new, more literal, Bible translation that will give you a better understanding as to what the original authors intended.