Preface | xix
First , the meaning of words is determined by the way that users of the language actually use them at any given time . For the biblical languages , therefore , the Committee utilizes the best and most recent scholarship on the way Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek words were being used in biblical times . At the same time , the Committee carefully studies the state of modern English . Good translation is like good communication : one must know the target audience so that the appropriate choices can be made about which English words to use to represent the original words of Scripture . From its inception , the NIV has had as its target the general English-speaking population all over the world , the “ International ” in its title reflecting this concern . The aim of the Committee is to put the Scriptures into natural English that will communicate effectively with the broadest possible audience of English speakers .
Modern technology has enhanced the Committee ’ s ability to choose the right English words to convey the meaning of the original text . The field of computational linguistics harnesses the power of computers to provide broadly applicable and current data about the state of the language . Translators can now access huge databases of modern English to better understand the current meaning and usage of key words . The Committee utilized this resource in preparing the 2011 edition of the NIV . An area of especially rapid and significant change in English is the way certain nouns and pronouns are used to refer to human beings . The Committee therefore requested experts in computational linguistics at Collins Dictionaries to pose some key questions about this usage to its database of English — the largest in the world , with over 4.4 billion words , gathered from several English-speaking countries and including both spoken and written English . ( The Collins Study , called “ The Development and Use of Gender Language in Contemporary English ,” can be accessed at http :// www . thenivbible . com / about-the-niv / about-the-2011-edition /.) The study revealed that the most popular words to describe the human race in modern U . S . English were “ humanity ,” “ man ” and “ mankind .” The Committee then used this data in the updated NIV , choosing from among these three words ( and occasionally others also ) depending on the context .
A related issue creates a larger problem for modern translations : the move away from using the third-person masculine singular pronouns — “ he / him / his ” — to refer to men and women equally . This usage does persist in some forms of English , and this revision therefore occasionally uses these pronouns in a generic sense . But the tendency , recognized in day-to-day usage and confirmed by the Collins study , is away from the generic use of “ he ,” “ him ” and “ his .” In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the natural English that people are actually using , this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally . The reader will encounter especially frequently a “ they ,” “ their ” or “ them ” to express a generic singular idea . Thus , for instance , Mark 8:36 reads : “ What good is it for someone to gain the whole world , yet forfeit their soul ?” This generic use of the “ distributive ” or “ singular ” “ they / them / their ” has been used for many centuries by respected writers of English and has now become established as standard English , spoken and written , all over the world .
A second linguistic principle that feeds into the Committee ’ s translation work is that meaning is found not in individual words , as vital as they are , but in larger clusters : phrases , clauses , sentences , discourses . Translation is not , as many people think , a matter of word substitution : English word x in place of Hebrew word y . Translators must first determine the meaning of the words of the biblical languages in the context of the passage and then select English words that accurately communicate that meaning to modern listeners and readers . This means that accurate translation will not always reflect the exact structure of the original language . To be sure , there is debate over the degree to which translators should try to preserve the “ form ” of the original text in English . From the beginning , the NIV has taken a mediating position on this issue . The manual produced when the translation that became the NIV was first being planned states : “ If the Greek or Hebrew syntax has a good parallel in modern English , it should be used . But if there is no good parallel , the English syntax appropriate to the meaning of the original is to be chosen .” It is fine , in