Comparing the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011

I've said before that there are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation. You can read my thinking on the following verses here.

Here are the results for the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 on the test verses.

1 Samuel 8:16

All three follow the Greek Septuagint here over the Hebrew text while noting the Hebrew reading in footnotes. (0.5/0.5/0.5 out of 1)


Matthew 10:8

All three follow the NA/UBS critical text in the New Testament. (1.5/1.5/1.5 out of 2)


Genesis 1:2

All three have the "Spirit of God" which I believe is correct. (2.5/2.5/2.5 out of 3)


Genesis 19:24

All three translate accurately. (3.5/3.5/3.5 out of 4)


Ruth 2:20

Here all three translate the key Hebrew term differently. The old NIV has "Kinsman-Redeemer". TNIV has "family guardian" and the new NIV has "guardian-redeemer". For me the old NIV is much to be preferred here. (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 5)


Psalm 25:14

All three go for "The LORD confides in those" where I prefer "The friendship of the LORD is with..." (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 6)


Psalm 92:7

All three miss the point of the verse which is not "though the wicked spring up...they will be destroyed" but "when the wicked spring up...it is only that they may be destroyed forevermore." (NASB) (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 7)


Proverbs 16:4

Here the old NIV is the only one that correctly says that the LORD works out everything for "his ends". The other two weaken this to everything working out for "its end". Very different view of God's sovereignty here. (5.5/3.5/3.5 out of 8)


Isaiah 7:14

All three are correct in translating it as "virgin" here. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 9)


Ezekiel 33:11

I would have preferred "does not delight in" here, but all three have "take no pleasure in." (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 10)


Jonah 3:3

All three interpret the phrase "of three days' journey" as "a visit required three days" (NIV84) and "it took three days to go through it" (TNIV and NIV 2011). It would be better left ambiguous in the translation rather than choose one possible meaning for the reader. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 11)


Haggai 2:7

I understand this as a Messianic prophecy. Only the old NIV allows the reader to interpret it correctly. The other two versions change it from "the desired of all nations" (which allows either interpretation) to "what is desired by all nations". (7.5/3.5/3.5 out of 12)


Micah 5:2

All three don't translate this verse as well as they could. They talk about the Messiah's "origins" being from "ancient times". Whereas the eternal Son of God's "goings forth" have been "from everlasting" (KJV). (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 13)


Matthew 2:10

All three translate well as "overjoyed" but the don't translate that literally here: "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" (KJV) (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 14)


Matthew 16:18

All three translate well, but have misleading footnotes simply saying "Peter means rock". This indicates that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church. However a different word is used. The footnote could have been much more accurate. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder. (8/5/5 out of 15)


Matthew 19:9

The old NIV had "marital unfaithfulness". Here both the TNIV and new NIV are more accurate with "sexual immorality". (8/6/6 out of 16)


Mark 2:19

All three translated idiomatically which helps the reader understand the meaning of the Jewish idiom. (9/7/7 out of 17)


Luke 4:22

All three have "spoke well of him" but the Greek is more accurately rendered "bore witness to him". Not everyone spoke well of him, but they did speak about him with approval. This may be all that Luke meant. (9/7/7 out of 18)


Luke 10:34

All three are literal here but misleading. They sound as if the bandages are put on first, then oil and wine poured on. Actually the order would be the opposite - oil and wine poured on then bandaged. (9/7/7 out of 19)


John 3:16

All three have "one and only" for monogenes. This is not the best translation, but it is okay. Unfortunately they all also keep the traditional "whoever believes" which is misleading. It should be "everyone who believes." (9.5/7.5/7.5 out of 20)


Acts 5:30

Only the old NIV is literal with "tree" here. The others change this to "cross." All get the wording clear enough so we know Jesus was killed by being hanging him on a tree/cross. (10.5/8/8 out of 21)


Acts 20:28

All three translate this verse correctly. (11.5/9/9 out of 22)


Romans 3:25

All three have "sacrifice of atonement" here rather than propitiation. Only the old NIV has an excellent footnote explaining what propitiation means. The others refer to the mercy seat instead. (12/9/9 out of 23)


Romans 8:28

All three opt for the weaker rendering that God "works for the good" rather than "works all things for good". (12/9/9 out of 24)


Romans 9:5

All three translate this very strongly in favour of Christ's deity. (13/10/10 out of 25)


1 Corinthians 7:1

The Greek literally says it is good for a man "not to touch a woman." Old NIV has "not to marry", the others have "not to have sexual relations". The new translations are better, but it might have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader decide. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 26)


1 Corinthians 7:36

All three have "the virgin he is engaged to" but literally the verse says "his virgin". So they are interpretations rather than literal translations (even though I think they are all correct). It would have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader or preacher decide what it means. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 27)


2 Corinthians 5:14

None of the three pick up on the fact that the second "all" is "this all" or "all these" so that those for whom Christ died are the same set of people as have died to sin (i.e. Christian believers). (13/10.5/10.5 out of 28)


2 Corinthians 5:16

All three talk about "worldly point of view" rather than the literal "according to the flesh" that Paul actually wrote. This is very interpretative in a translation. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 29)


Ephesians 3:9-10

All three fail this test by punctuating the sentence so that Paul's meaning cannot be that God created all things so that though the church the wisdom of God might be made known, even though this is a legitimate interpretation of the verse. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 30)


Philippians 2:6-7

Here the TNIV and NIV 2011 are much preferable to the original NIV. Their translation that Christ did not consider his equality with God something that he should take advantage of is absolutely excellent. All three have "made himself nothing" rather than "emptied himself" which is so easily misunderstood. I prefer "made himself of no account" but the NIV family version is also good. (13/11.5/11.5 out of 31)


Colossians 2:8

Only the old NIV translates as "the basic principles of the world" where the others have "elemental spiritual forces of this world". The trouble is that I understand Paul's phrase is wider than "spiritual forces". It includes all the principles of this world, not just spiritual ones. (14/11.5/11.5 out of 32)


2 Timothy 3:16

All three have "All Scripture is God-breathed". This is very literal and correct although I prefer "All Scripture is breathed out by God" which is better English as in the ESV. (14.5/12/12 out of 33)


Hebrews 2:9

All three have "tasted death for everyone". Literally it should be "for all" instead. (14.5/12/12 out of 34)


1 Peter 3:3-4

All three translate this verse well and convey the meaning clearly for the reader in English. (15.5/13/13 out of 35)


2 Peter 1:1

All three are accurate here. (16.5/14/14 out of 36)


2 Peter 1:20

All three are acceptable translations here even though they are slightly interpretative. The TNIV and NIV 2011 add "of things" after "interpretation" but this is not significant. (17.5/15/15 out of 37)


1 John 3:9

All three say that no one born again will "continue to sin". This is simply not true - or none of us are born again! Much better is something like the NASB which says we don't "practice sin". It happens but it is not our purpose in life any more. (17.5/15/15 out of 38)


Jude 4

All three miss the point about reprobation in this verse. (17.5/15/15 out of 39)


It would appear from this survey that the new NIV 2011 is very like the TNIV and as far as this albeit unscientific sample of verses is concerned, both are a tiny step backwards from the 1984 NIV, though all three remain very similar translations. Of course a different selection of verses might show something different. There are undoubtedly improvements in some places in the new version over the old one. In Romans for example, the restoration of the more literal "righteousness of God" - a key phrase in Paul's argument - which leaves room for more than one interpretation is preferable to the old NIV's "righteousness from God" which may be correct as an interpretation but not as a translation.

There are other places where the TNIV and NIV 2011 reflect advances or changes in scholarly opinion about certain words and phrases. I also have no problem with gender neutral changes where these are justified by the Hebrew or Greek. In the end there is little to choose between the three versions. As with any translation people will have quibbles here and there. That is the case with the NIV 2011. It was the case with the TNIV and it was the case when the NIV itself first came out.

Because they strike a good balance between readability and accuracy for the most part, the NIV remains a good choice as a person's primary bible, along with more literal translations like the ESV and NRSV and more dynamic versions like the NLT and Good News Bible.