The Holman NIV UltraThin Reference Bible

[@trentstewart6703]

Im so glad I still have my NIV from 1987. I do wish someone would reproduce the 1984. I think Schuyler made a big miss doing the 2011. A premium 1984 NIV would be gold. I am more RSV/ESV and these days but I still go back to see my old friend time to time.

[@jonny3874]

A great and thorough review as ever! I always learn something from your videos. Thank you!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for that very kind comment, Jonny!

[@djpodesta]

This review brings back a lot of memories.

[@tony.biondi]

Thank you, brother - I have missed your reviews. God bless you.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment, Tony! Sorry for the delay in posting videos. Sometimes life get busy.

[@Mike-pz6hz]

@@RGrantJones Do you have an idea when you will release the part 2 translation comparison video for the NRSVue? Looking forward to it.

[@RGrantJones]

@@Mike-pz6hz - I intend to make serious progress on that project this week, so I'll have a much better idea in a few days.

[@NnifWald]

As a Catholic, I obviously take issue with a lot of the NIV's more... interpretive translation choices. However, I find it to be quite nice for casual reading. It flows very smoothly.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Finian! I agree - the NIV does read smoothly.

[@thecaesar14]

great video, i love your channel!

[@chrispoe1604]

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about these Holman NIV Bibles (including the Large Print Ultrathin) is that they are among the few NIV84 Bibles that are not red letter editions. As time went on, almost all NIV84 Bibles were red letter. I've never seen one of these with a glued text block, so it is good to know that you can't just assume that they are all sewn. Later printings were printed in Korea and are sewn. Beyond the mid 1990s, (if not before) most Zondervan NIV84s were glued.

[@PrentissYeates]

Many years ago I was able to purchase the same bible from a local bible college. With all the push for high end bibles, you really couldn’t get any better in the 1970’-early 80’s than any bible published by Broadman & Holman. It was published in the US, and a few ultra thins bound in the Netherlands.

[@Haexz1]

Hi Grant, thanks once again for another great video. Completely off topic question but does you 'Departures from the MT' take into account the Septuagint basis for the Latin Vulgate/Douay Rheims bible?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Joshua. I check each of the 100 passages for agreement with the Masoretic reading. If the translation disagrees, it's rewarded a point. So the translation source text should affect the score, but I don't need to know the source to score the translation. (By the way, I believe the old Vulgate - the pre-Jerome Latin translation - was based on the LXX, but I understand that Jerome preferred to translate from the Hebrew where it was available.)

[@thomassiharath9078]

Great bible review, if only they print 1984 bibles today in the same format

[@Airik1111bibles]

Ah yes the amazing onion skin Holman paper , I personally love that paper ...These older Holmans were so nice , I miss these older bibles ...I'm finding the current designs of today boring.

[@RGrantJones]

These (or at least the ones with sewn bindings) were well made also. Thanks for commenting, Airik1111!

[@Airik1111bibles]

​@@RGrantJones Mine also says "premium bonded leather" 😏 thats funny...BUT compared to most bonded leather which seems to have expiration dates this stuffs not bad at all. I have some old nelsons that literally turned to dust. As you can see im watching R Grant Jones reruns .

[@RGrantJones]

@@Airik1111bibles - mine's held up well too, though I haven't used it much. "Premium bonded leather" sounds disingenuous, but it may have worked as a marketing ploy (like "French milled paper"). I'm happy to see your comments, Airik1111!

[@kirbysmith4135]

Thank you for your review. I actually have that very bible, except that it is in black. Of course, bonded leather does not wear as well as genuine leather, and years ago I taped the cover with black electricians tape! The sewn binding, however, is still holding up very nicely. You are correct about the convenience of size, and since I am near-sighted (and 65 years old) I can read it very well. I disagree with you, though, about the red-letters. I much prefer them, as it allows me to more quickly find Jesus' quotes. I have watched several of your videos, and I want to compliment you on your thoroughness. Your bible chart comparison is much more detailed than any others I have seen. Thanks for your good work! BTW, what is your opinion of the wearability of the new leathersoft covers?

[@RGrantJones]

Kirby - thanks very much for that kind comment! I've heard that Leathersoft isn't very durable, especially in warm, damp climates, but I've not put it to the test myself.

[@kirbysmith4135]

@@RGrantJones Thank you, Grant.

[@edwardgraham9443]

They don't make them like they used to. I find myself using text only Bibles with footnotes nowadays, and using references only when I want to do deep studies. This had lead me to almost exclusively use the ESV translation because I can find Bibles that fit what I want. I've been trying unsuccessfully to find an NKJV that only had the text and full set of translation footnotes, almost all NKJV Bibles I've seen are reference Bibles. I also prefer wide margin Bibles or at least some amount of margin space so that I can write my own notes. Single column paragraph Bibles becoming my preferred option too, although currently my most used Bible is the ESV Large Print Wide Margin Bible.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Edward! It's interesting to hear how your preferences have changed over time.

[@edwardgraham9443]

@@RGrantJones It's been a funny journey to say the least. I've been using the NKJV for almost all of my life, I only used the the KJV briefly and even the I still had my NKJV. But over time as my dislike for red letter Bibles grew (my original NKJV was black letter) and the fact it was very difficult to find black letter NKJV, I had to use the red letter Bibles, that is how I actually got a KJV in the first place. Recently I wanted to focus more on the text and references just seemed to get in my way and made the reading a little bit more cluttered and since I had developed a liking for the ESV translation, and I could find Bibles that matched my needs, I though it better thay I use them. Someone (one or your subscribers too) sent me the ESV Preaching Bible in Trutone over Board and the layout was such an ease and joy to read from. The more I used it, the more I loved it and it has become my daily reader. I study and makes notes in the ESV Large Print Wide Margin, but the single column paragraph layout is pulling me towards it. I've always been a paragraph layout person because of the NKJV, I've never gotten into verse by verse really, so that wasn't a change, but I never thought that I'd like single column Bibles. While I still use the other translations, the ESV is my go to translation. You helped me with the choice after watching your comparisons between it and the NKJV and NASB which are together are the three translations that I actually use the most. Maybe it's because the ESV doesn't sound so far out from the NKJV, but I've really gotten to love the translation a lot.

[@ionutpaun9828]

I have a question: which bible translation in your opinion manages to convey the same language, feelings, message, etc. for a modern audience as the original text did for the original audience ? As an example, the New Testament is written in Koine Greek, which was the common Greek at the time - easily understandable by most people, definitely not the elegant Greek in Homer. Hence, the English translation would reflect that. I do not know any biblical languages, neither Hebrew nor Greek. I heard from people that know Greek, that for example, St. Mark's Greek from his gospel is horrible, but the Greek of the Hebrews' author is very elegant. Yet, in English I couldn't really notice that aspect. Maybe, some English translations are too elegant, beautiful sometimes and do not reflect the common language spoken at the time. Hopefully, this question and comment makes sense.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Ionut. Your question makes very good sense, but I'm not qualified to answer it: I don't know which English translation does that best.

[@ionutpaun9828]

@@RGrantJones Thanks. I think the Lexham English Septuagint wanted to achieve that goal but I can't say whether they were successful in doing that.

[@stephengilbreath840]

I think it's a shame that the 1984 NIV fell out of print. I prefer that one to the 2011

[@RGrantJones]

I do too. Thanks for commenting, Stephen!

[@knothead35]

I do too. It's the only copy of the niv I own

[@bos567564]

Thank you for the review. I really enjoyed the video. Gender inclusive language infuriates me. Sometimes, I just which these translators would use ''she'' and ''her'' since they despise so much ''he'' and ''him''. At least in this case, they would be accurately translating third-person singular pronouns as they appear in the original languages. I feel they should just go all the way here: they should remove the masculine pronouns and replace them with feminine pronouns. I as a man would not be offended in the least. In fact, I would welcome such a change. Oh I just remembered they can't do this, lest they be accused of ''transphobia'' where a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. What a strange world we live in, Mr Jones!

[@RGrantJones]

'What a strange world we live in, Mr Jones!' Indeed! I say that to myself several time just about every day.

[@MAMoreno]

I find the 1984 edition to be significantly less trustworthy than the 2011 edition, regardless of any questions about gender accuracy. It's hardly as bad as the NWT when it comes to rewriting verses to suit the committee's theology, but when you have Jesus calling the mustard seed "the smallest of all *your* seeds" (Matt. 13.32 NIV 1984, emphasis added) to avoid even the lightest implication that Jesus made a botanical error, you're doing something wrong. And N.T. Wright has rightly said that Romans 3 in the 1984 edition is very restrictive in its interpretation of Paul's theology of righteousness, faith, and law. The 2011 revision has replaced "a righteousness from God" (Rom. 3.21) with the more neutral reading "the righteousness of God," and it has dropped the 1984 text's "observing the law" (3.28) for "the works of the law." It is also generous enough to offer "through the faithfulness of [Jesus Christ]" in the margin as an alternative to "through faith in Jesus Christ" (3.22), something that the previous NIV did not do. The 2011 edition keeps some of its predecessor's problems, though. The most grating one for me is the frequent use of the past perfect tense to smooth out supposed contradictions (e.g. Gen. 2.8, 19; 12.1), though to be fair, the Douay Old Testament does this a bit, too. And there are the aforementioned problems with the verses you mentioned in the video, which remain untouched. But it's still a vast improvement overall.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for those insights, M.A. Moreno. The 1984 NIV wasn't bashful when it came to ensuring standard Evangelical interpretations were represented in the text.

[@edwardgraham9443]

I had a NIV once, back about 2002, but just never got into it. After read a few chapters it just didn't seem like it it was something I wanted to read. I looked a some verses in the 2011 text and said I'll pass. I'll stick with more essentially literal translations like the NKJV, ESV and NASB 95, I'm not convinced on the NASB 2020. What's your take on it? By the way that ESV Preaching Bible Trutone over Board is my daily reader, I'm hoping to someday possibly get the premium version as I prefer the more flexible leather than the hard back. Thank you again.

[@MAMoreno]

@@edwardgraham9443 My take on the NASB 2020 is that it is slightly superior to the 1995 edition, but I have not made an extensive comparison between the two. Most notably, the new edition feels less archaic, especially from a U.S. perspective. (For example, Genesis 1.24 now says "livestock" instead of "cattle," which better reflects Standard American English usage.) But it's a very mild update from what I've seen, and I haven't yet purchased a 2020 edition yet to replace my 1995 edition. It might almost be worth it just to be able to make sense of Hebrews 4.13, which no longer contains the woefully outdated KJV language of "with whom we have to do."

[@edwardgraham9443]

@@MAMoreno I'm trying to read through it to get a better perspective on it. In terms of the change from cattle to livestock, since I'm not American, but Jamaican and speak and spell British English using the same syntax and grammar, that doesn't work for me. I guess that is all Bibles barring British editions. I wished that there was a British edition of the ESV 2016 text. Also with the 2020 NASB, I wished they had ditched the capitalized pronouns for diety. I see where they added the extra Hebrew letter in Psalm 145 to complete the acrostic Psalm.

[@MAMoreno]

@@edwardgraham9443 Probably my most notable nitpick with the 2020 NASB is that it no longer translates _hesed_ as "lovingkindness." Instead, it translates it in all sorts of ways (such as "faithfulness"), which makes the usage of the word harder to track across the Hebrew Bible. I much prefer the "steadfast love" of the NRSV/ESV and the "faithful love" of the CSB. The NLT's "unfailing love" and the NET Bible's "loyal love" are good options, too. (The NIV is also rather unhelpful, since it typically uses the word "love" without any modifiers that would indicate the presence of this particular Hebrew word.) The word obviously doesn't need to be (and indeed shouldn't be) translated the same way every single time it appears, but we need some way of instantly realizing when a later author is echoing Exodus 34.6-7. But back on the positive side, the NASB 2020 gives the dimensions of the New Jerusalem as "twelve thousand stadia" instead of "fifteen hundred miles," which indicates to me that the translators realized that the symbolic significance of the number is more important than the actual length. (The NRSVue also made this improvement over its predecessor, thankfully.)