[10] The NIV began with the formation of a small committee to study the value of producing a translation in the common language of the American people and a project of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1957.

[13][14] In 1967, the New York Bible Society (now called Biblica) took responsibility for the project and hired a team of 15 scholars from various Evangelical Christian denominations and from various countries.

[15][11] The initial "Committee on Bible Translation" consisted of Leslie Carlson, Edmund Clowney, Ralph Earle, Jr., Burton L. Goddard, R. Laird Harris, Earl S. Kalland, Kenneth Kantzer, Robert H. Mounce, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Francis R. Steele, John H. Stek, J. C. Wenger, Stephen W. Paine, and Marten Woudstra.

A revised English edition, Today's New International Version (TNIV), again used gender-neutral language and was released as a New Testament in March 2002, with the complete Bible being published in February 2005.

[19] The update modified and dropped some of the gender-neutral language compared to TNIV, which included going back to using "mankind" and "man," rather than "human beings" and "people.

"[20][21][22] Keith Danby, the president and chief executive officer of Biblica, speaking of the TNIV, said that they had failed to convince people that revisions were needed and that they had underestimated their readers' loyalty to the 1984 edition.

Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and, for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.

The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglican, Catholic, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.

[34] In support of that claim, Wright specifically mentioned several verses of Romans 3, which he suggested not to convey how "righteousness" refers to the covenant faithfulness of God or reflect his own thinking about the pistis Christou debate.

[35] Michael Marlowe, a scholar in biblical languages, criticized as "indefensible" the footnote provided in the NIV for 1 Corinthians 11:4–7, which replaced multiple instances of "head covering" with "long hair" to "harmonize this passage with modern habits of dress.

"[36] Church historian David Bercot, whose focus is early Christianity, likewise deemed the footnote a "fanciful interpretation" that "is in no way an alternate translation of the Greek text.

[38] Theologian John Sailhamer stated, "Not only is such a translation [...] hardly possible [...] but it misses the very point of the narrative, namely, that the animals were created in response to God's declaration that it was not good that the man should be alone.

"[39] Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger criticized the NIV 1984 edition[40] for the addition of "just" into Jeremiah 7:22 in which the verse becomes "For when I brought your forefathers/ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices."

[41] Professor of New Testament Studies Daniel B. Wallace[42] praised the 2011 update and called it "a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader.