Not that I have to 100% agree with my church, denomination, professors and translators. Jeannine Brown was my professor this past semester for Intro to Hermeneutics.

Two out of the 15 members of the CBT are Bethel Seminary professors. One main reasons I attend Bethel Seminary is that I trust my church and my denomination. Converge supports and is affiliated with Bethel Seminary. I attend and am on staff with a church that is affiliated with Converge. Is this person being used by God to communicate truth? Or are they letting their own desires and agendas take over? These questions have to be asked of the biblical translation teams, including the CBT.ДЄ little background. Part of the Christian experience is figuring out who to trust and who not to trust. No person is perfect, but at the end of the day, God uses people to spread his message. Here are 11 reasons why Cait and I are using the NIV - the 2011 Revision.ДЎ. (On a side note: As I understand, every major and modern translation goes through similar process of being updated as needed.) In the meantime, the 2011 revision (NIV11) is the current translation Cait and I are using as our daily driver. I suspect that another revision will occur sometime after 2026. The next revision occured in 1984 (the most well known), 2005 and most recently 2011. Originally, the first NIV was released in 1978. Every 10-15 years a new revision of the NIV is released according to the CBT's decisions. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) are 15 scholars who are tasked to meet yearly and discuss changes to the NIV. For those of you who didn't spend weeks researching the NIV. At the very least, it has been useful for me to write it. I suspect that very few will take the time to read the whole thing. This post is intended to be used as a reference list. More specifically, why we are using the latest revision of the NIV. This is particularly true in the NT hardly so in the OT.Continuing from the previous post about Bible translations, I felt it necessary to post about why Cait and I chose the New International Version (NIV). The NIV thus overtly became a simpler Bible than previous semi-literal translations had been, and with this simplicity it gave up too much. In particular, the chopping up of long Greek sentences in the NT destroyed much of the intricately argued subordination of thought. However, from a linguistic perspective there were flaws in the translation philosophy from the beginning. It is still a good translation, and the next iteration will continue to be decent. However, there are also strong egalitarian voices, Gordon Fee being chief among them. Strong complementarians on the translation committee to allow that to happen. It will no doubt attempt to accommodate the shifts in the English language toward gender neutrality, but will for the most part, I'm sure, not make strong concessions to egalitarian ideology. However, a revision of the NIV that is not called a revision is in the works. They were acting under pressure from the broohaha that Susan Olasky's article in World magazine had created. In 1997, the central translation committee and Zondervan Publishing House, in a combined statement, declared that the NIV would not be tampered with.

The current version of the NIV is a solid translation.

Niv revisions