I can’t stand your religious meetings.I’m fed up with your conferences and conventions.
I want nothing to do with your religion projects,your pretentious slogans and goals.
I’m sick of your fund-raising schemes,your public relations and image making.
I’ve had all I can take of your noisy ego-music.When was the last time you sang to me?
Do you know what I want?
I want justice—oceans of it.I want fairness—rivers of it.
That’s what I want. That’s all I want.

http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/

Basically, it looks like the NIV2011 is about 90% the same as the TNIV. Also, just from doing my own comparisons, I have found that the NIV2011 is much more like the TNIV than the NIV84. I think that is mostly due to gender-inclusive language, which incidentally, is what doomed the TNIV and was partly the motivation behind the entire project to revamp the NIV.

I agree with others that it will be difficult of the NIV 2011 to become the new standard translation in churches also bearing in mind that most bibles of worship service attendants and the bibles available in churches are ONIVs. Such a change might be easier in smaller (and thus more flexible) house-church settings. But it is always rewarding to compare bible translations.

Interestingly, a new and modern bible translation is being released in Germany. So far, only the New Testament has been translated.  Very often, Greek sentences tend to be very long. Modern people of the internet era, however, seem to suffer a lot from poor concentration skills and lack of ability to read through longer texts. :) (this is true for me, at least). Even though ancient Greek sentences might be long they can very well be separated in meaningful phrases. The resulting German translation thus remains close to ancient Greek and is yet radically different from traditional bible translations in German. (As you might know, German sentences can be awfully long, too).

I was thinking that modern translations should maybe also account for new ways of making the word accessible, such as fully searchable, cross-referenced, electronic versions, portable versions for e-readers, etc…

I was just wondering: what is your take on the TNIV?

Back in 2009, when it was first announced that the NIV was going to be updated, I decided to start using a different translation altogether. There were a lot of things that led up to that decision, but generally speaking, I was at a point where I had gone as far as I could with the NIV. For the kinds of study that I wanted to do I needed a literal, word-for-word translation, and the NIV was no longer suitable for that. Among the various translations that I considered, one of them was the ESV, which I had actually used for a short time back in 2001 right after it came out. However, I eventually decided on the NASB, and looking back, that was definitely the right choice.

I do not want to knock the NIV too much; after all, it was the translation that I used for nearly 17 years. However, being in a church and around people who use the NIV all the time I cannot help but see some of its weaknesses.

One of the more significant problems with the NIV is that it often interprets the text rather than just translating it. A good example of this is in John 12:2 where the NIV inserts the word “honor” into the sentence, even though it does not appear in the Greek. This is easily verifiable by reading it in a word-for-word translation. Of course, I hardly believe that is the only place where a word has been inserted into the text by the translators, but unless I am willing to compare each passage I read to a literal translation there is no way to know for sure. That was a major reason that I decided to stop using it, because I simply lost confidence in the text, not knowing which words really belonged in there.

As for the NIV2011, since it was first released online last fall I have been evaluating it and reading up on it. In some cases, there are significant improvements. For instance, the word commonly rendered as “sinful nature” in the NIV84 is now rightly rendered as “flesh” (e.g., Ro 7:5). At the same time, there are some questionable modifications, such as Galatians 3:13 where the NIV2011 reads, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Obviously, the biggest change, for better or for worse, is the use of gender-inclusive language, and I believe that will be the real issue for most people when it comes to embracing it or not. Regardless of all this, the NIV2011 is still a dynamic equivalent translation at heart, which makes it easy to read and understand, but simply not suitable for in-depth, granular study.

One thing about the NIV2011 that I do appreciate is that it is generating conversation and interest about Bible translation. Hopefully people will take the time to investigate these things for themselves so that they will understand that the difference between one translation and another may not just be a difference in wording, but a difference in what philosophy is used in the translation process. This is not a light matter either. Every word of God is pure (Ps 12:6; Pr 30:5), and those who translate the Scripture ought to remember this to ensure that they are “accurately handling the word of truth” (2Ti 2:15).