Is that enough acronyms for you? I thought some of our more nerdy readers (myself included) might be interested to read the Committee for Bible Translation’s response to the Southern Baptist Convention’s banning of the NIV 2011. (For the full response see Daniel Thompson’s post).

One of the reasons I like the NIV 2011 (I was never a fan of the NIV 84 but liked the TNIV) is because of the scholars on the committee itself. What is not to like from this list?

Finally I reiterate what I have said previously: I am left wondering why the SBC felt compelled only discourage the NIV. What about the NLT, NRSV and any other translation which uses gender inclusive language? Surely a better and more Christlike way would have been to commend to members of the SBC translations they felt reflected their theological approach thus admitting in a spirit of humility that they may be wrong. Instead of pointing out what is wrong perhaps folks in the church would be better served by being directed towards translations like the ESV and HCSB. My own denomination recommends the NRSV because it feels it is the most accurate of the English translations (I disagree. As much as I like and use the NRSV I much prefer the TNIV and NIV2011 as it is more readable) however, it would never suggest to its members that any translation should be banned . I fear when a denomination, any denomination, gets to the point singling out and banning a particular translation of the Bible they have crossed the line into idolatry. Perhaps the SBC would better served by only using the Hebrew and Greek?

Anyway, I cannot speak highly enough of the NIV 2011!