Some of the more conservative churches have decided to reject a new translation of the New International Version Bible (Known as the NIV 2011) because of changes in how the Bible treats gender.
This story about how the more conservative Lutherans rejected the NIV 2011 is fascinating.
Here is an example of how the new version changes the language and an explanation of why this is not acceptable to the more conservative churches:
Genesis 1:26–27 in NIV 2011 reads: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in our image, in our likeness, so that they [the plural pronoun is in the original] may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in his own image, in the image of God he created them [plural pronoun substitution for "him"]; male and female he created them.”
In the first substitution of “mankind” for “man,” the particularity of the first man is made unclear. The rationale for this would seem to be the desire to emphasize that all humanity is created in God’s image, but the original text itself had made that abundantly clear already by paralleling “man” in the first clause of verse 26 with “they” in the following clause. In verse 27, the second substitution of “mankind” for “man” again undermines the particularity of Adam’s creation. Moreover, when coupled with the substitution of “them” for “him” as the verse continues, the progression of the verse is obfuscated. The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God’s image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him. The original text then preserves both the particularity and universality which NIV 2011 undermines.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/lutherans-latest-to-reject-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/#k33p3jhF7MPLu2LV.99
For the record, I think all people interested in the Bible should read different versions. Remember, the original text was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was translated into 17th century English for the original King James Version, and then some changes were made for the 19th century version, which Joseph Smith read. The version we read at church includes modern commentary and chapter headings. So, we do not worship the “church Bible” — we worship the Savior, and read about Him in the Bible and modern-day scriptures.
As an adult convert to the Church, my first Bible was a children’s Bible. I also read a comic book version in Spanish (which was quite good, by the way). When I finally read the KJV, I noticed an amazing number of stylistic references to 19th and 20th century literature, and everything fell into place. (Read “Grapes of Wrath” by Steinbeck and notice all of the stylistic similarities to the KJV).
But I would like to note that even as a well-read adult I found much of the New Testament, especially Paul, incomprehensible in the KJV.
A personal recommendation: supplement your reading of the KJV with the NIV or another version. You will find the Bible much easier to understand that way.
As to whether the 2011 NIV is acceptable, well, perhaps not. I am sure there are some good things about the translation, but there are also appear to be some questionable areas. I would like to hear from Biblical scholars who are certain to know more about the subject than I do.