Perhaps of interest is “The History of The NIV Translation Controversy” by William W. Combs from Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. It’s a good read on English Bible translations.
I favor the NIV2011, though see value in all the widely-accepted English versions. Those arguing for the priority of formal equivalent translations have some questions unanswered. Combs writes:
Those who support more formal equivalent translations like the ESV almost always tie their preference to a belief that the doctrine of verbal inspiration naturally calls for a more literal translation philosophy. For example, in a book written to defend the translation philosophy of the ESV (and coming from the same publisher), Leland Ryken argues:
Three interrelated doctrines are particularly relevant to Bible translation. They are the authority of the Bible, the inspiration of biblical authors by the Holy Spirit, and the verbal or plenary (“full, complete”) inspiration of the Bible. I will make my own position clear right at the outset: I believe that these three doctrines lead logically to a translation that is essentially literal. Correspondingly, I believe that dynamic equivalence translations have led many evangelicals to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) the very doctrines of the Word that they theoretically espouse.
This supposed necessary corollary between verbal inspiration and formal equivalence translation philosophy is fallacious. In reality both the form and meaning of Scripture are inspired. Meaning is inexorably tied to linguistic form. Those who argue that verbal inspiration demands a formal equivalent translation fail to understand that one cannot always transfer the form of the source language into the receptor language and convey the same meaning unless both languages have the same linguistic form. But since all languages differ in form (this is a major reason why they are different languages), the form must often be changed to preserve the meaning. Admittedly, however, there is a legitimate debate over how much change is necessary.
HT: Andy Naselli
See also D. A. Carson’s The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism.
I have very much been enjoying the NIV 2011 translation, as I am reading it in the NIV study Bible. I finally settled upon the NIV Study Bible after a very lengthy search for a new study Bible. I appreciate the general tendency to present several views on various important texts, as well as the gender accurate language.
Hey J.W.! Thanks for commenting. I’m glad we have different translations on a grading scale from formal to functional equivalence. As for the “gender accurate,” if God clearly intended women to be included in some texts (e.g., Rom 12:1), then why not say so? It continues to amaze me that so many intelligent people insist otherwise. ‘-/
I admit I’m confused by your response. Was not the word “brothers” used inclusively?
J.W. Sorry for any confusion. I was referring to the NIV2011 that translates “brothers” (Greek αδελφοι) as “brothers and sisters,” which I believe best captures the intent. Though the first century would understand αδελφοι as inclusive, the 21st century might not. As for the “intelligent people [who] insist otherwise,” it was the Grudemites and Piperians that I had in mind.
I think we meant different things by “gender accurate” then. I meant gender accurate in the sense of being accurate to what was meant by the author.