I just noticed that the 1984 NIV is no longer available on Biblegateway. According to their support department here is why,
“The NIV remains the most popular English contemporary translation, with more than 450 million copies distributed since it was first published in 1978. During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition. This transition period mirrors the earlier two-year transition from the 1978 version to the 1984 version. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway, and we are complying with their wishes.
Since the latest edition of the NIV was published in December 2010, over 11 million copies have been distributed and it has been adopted by thousands of churches, ministries, authors and other publishers around the globe. We understand your disappointment that the 1984 edition of the NIV is no longer available, but we hope you’ll grow to appreciate the updated NIV, as many other Bible Gateway visitors have done.”
It seems strange to say one of their reasons is that there are 11 million 2011 NIV’s in circulation when, as they stated, there are 450 NIV’s in print (439 1978-1984 NIV’s). I know this isn’t their call, this is Biblica who is requesting this of them and they have to comply but it seems kind of amazing to totally remove such a popular translation like that. One of the reasons sites like BG are so helpful is that you can compare translations, even different NIV’s against each other. I hope they (Biblica/Biblegateway) will reconsider.
20 Responses
The 2011NIV was an improvement on the TNIV, and it did fix some of the weaknesses of the older NIV, but the gender neutral wording in the 2011 version is annoying. I made the switch to the ESV in my teaching and preaching. I like it.
Good summary there. This will cause some people to consider new translations, which is good but I would think might hurt biblegateway. I am sure they are upset about this as well.
I understand removing the 1984 NIV but I wish they still had the TNIV available. Though I preach from the NIV 2011, the TNIV was as good as a translation as it’s 2011 replacement. It’s just a shame that evangelical fear-politicking ended the TNIV just as people were beginning to warmup to it.
I also wish that Biblegateway would make the NRSV available, as I still read from that version plenty of times.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
NTSC is available now. I am really happy about that.
I agree regarding the NRSV. It has been my study Bible for years. RSV before that.
I still keep a King James handy, especially for the Psalms. The KJV Psalms are my early Saturday morning joy. The most beautiful literature in the world is my prayer vitamin. Peter Gomes says he recommends the KJV Psalms to all who are going through pain and suffering. I agree…they work.
The gender neutral wording is a big plus for many.
Matt the 1984 edition along with many other tools are available on biblios.com
Can you put a link here to the 84 NIV from that site? I am not familiar with the site and looked around a bit and didn’t see it.
NRSV is available on Bible Gateway. However, The Living Oracles translation by Alexander Campbell is not 🙂
I believe it’s gone from youversion app as well. Can’t get mine to load.
Printed versions of the NIV 1984 are still available, but they are disappearing quickly. I don’t understand why Zondervan is eliminating access to a version that so many people love. The unintended result is that rather than simply embracing the NIV 2011, some are leaving for other translations. Maybe Zondervan will bring it back as the Classic NIV (like Coke did so many years ago, after consumers rejected the New Coke).
You might find this interesting. Acts 2:38 was modified with the 1984 edition. The original (1978) said, “be baptized…so that your sins may be forgiven.” The later editions modified it to the (more nebulous?), “…for the forgiveness of your sins.” A friend of mine asked editor Kenneth Barker about it, and he essentially said that although the earlier translation was more accurate, they had so many complaints due to the way that rendering confounded the faith-only crowd (he didn’t use those terms), that Zondervan felt compelled to change it. Then my buddy added this, respectfully, “I thought the Bible was supposed to determine one’s theology, rather than one’s theology determining the Bible.”
1984 NIV is a must. An absolute must. Take Revelation 20 for example, where it talks about the Great White Throne. The 1984 says “earth and sky fled from his presense” while the 2011 says “the earth and sky fled from his presense.” The 1984 style is so much more powerful for many people including myself. When I quote Scripture via copy and paste, I mainly do it from the 1984 NIV and am proud to do it. The 2011 NIV just doesn’t hit the same way.
This is very important, thank you for pointing this out.
Reblogged this on My Word Like Fire.
Glo Bible (globible.com) not only includes both NIV84 and the new NIV11 but they are both available on the free version. It also includes the ESV for those who are interested although I must admit that I got turned off the ESV when reading family devotions and got to 1Sa 13:1 where it reads “Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel.” The whole family was surprised that no dates or ages were given. It appears NIV and ESV differ on whether or not there are really numbers in the “originals” (and I am not qualified to make the call at this time) but it seems like at some point we need to step out on a limb and take a risk 😉
Any software you purchased before this decision will have it.
For those interested in the continuance of this issue – and we really ought to be – Biblica tried to offset the complaints about loss of access to the NIV 1984 by giving a link on a complaints webpage to an archive website at Wheaton College where a searchable online version of the edition could be found. Unfortunately, Biblica seems unaware that the link they gave no longer exists; Wheaton College gave up its licence for this shared public webpage a few months ago and relocated the NIV 1984 data cache to a Google sites webpage. This should be accessible thru:-
https://sites.google.com/a/my.wheaton.edu/niv-1984/
(It is today.) As regards the NIV 2010 edition and descendants, regardless olf how nice they be to read, should we in the churches of Christ (at least) not be more than a little disturbed that it interprets Genesis 1: 26-27; 5: 1, rather than translates the source documents, while still claiming to be “an accurate translation” (see Preface)? Come on people, what about 2 Peter 1: 20-21? Do the 1995 NIV Committee on Bible ‘Translation’ believe that God would accept as being to His glory (see Preface to Inclusive Language NIV) their actions in attempting to replace His actual given words by their own interpretation, and then calling it a translation?
For those interested in the continuance of this issue – and we really ought to be – Biblica tried to offset the complaints about loss of access to the NIV 1984 by giving a link on a complaints webpage to an archive website at Wheaton College where a searchable online version of the edition could be found. Unfortunately, Biblica seems unaware that the link they gave no longer exists; Wheaton College gave up its licence for this shared public webpage a few months ago and relocated the NIV 1984 data cache to a Google sites webpage. This should be accessible thru:-
https://sites.google.com/a/my.wheaton.edu/niv-1984/
(It is today.) As regards the NIV 2010 edition and descendants, regardless olf how nice they be to read, should we in the churches of Christ (at least) not be more than a little disturbed that it interprets Genesis 1: 26-27; 5: 1, rather than translates the source documents, while still claiming to be “an accurate translation” (see Preface)? Come on people, what about 2 Peter 1: 20-21? Do the 1995 NIV Committee on Bible ‘Translation’ believe that God would accept as being to His glory (see Preface to Inclusive Language NIV) their actions in attempting to replace His actual given words by their own interpretation?
I have to wonder if this is all about money.
These updates seem to be a TREND !