What do you think about the 2011 version of the New International Version?


USA Today, Wednesday, September 2, ran an article about the New International Bible. An updated version is coming out in 2011. Do you have an opinion of this Bible? What version do you use?


The New International Version, while easy to read is a flawed translation. See "The New International Version" for details. The owners of this translation, Biblica, has attempted in the past to make updates to the version which has been met with strong objections. The Today's New International Version was a flop because it tried to address the modern feminism's view that the English language is sexist. Even though English, like most other languages in the world, uses the masculine form when gender is not known, feminists insist that this is improper. The result has been poor writing in an attempt to avoid using masculine pronouns.

The problem is that both Hebrew and Greek operate like English in regards to using the masculine form for times when either gender is meant. Thus translators are guessing when the text really means a male or gender unknown. The results are often wrong. Another technique is using the pural form to avoid gender. The problem is that many commands then become group actions instead of individual actions as they were originally presented. The sermon "Gender-Neutral Bibles" addresses these flaws.

Since the 2011 version of the New International Version is not yet available for criticing, it is a guess as to what they will do to the translation. It is highly unlikely they will fix the flaws of the original New International Version. They have announced that they will add gender-neutral changes, just not as extensively as they had done in the Today's New International Version. My guess is that the 2011 version will be less accurate of a translation than then New International Version, which is already flawed.