Top-selling Bible in North America to be revised...

Yahoo News ^ | September 2nd, 2009

[TaraP]

The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text. The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.

"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand," said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.

But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.

The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it. So in some verses, references to "sons of God" became "children of God," for example.

Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.

[Terabitten]

The NIV was revised and published as the TNIV in 2002, but did poorly due to anemic publisher support and (allegedly) a bad-mouthing campaign by those with a financial interest in the ESV.

Interesting. I prefer the ESV, personally, but I used the NIV for years and the KJV before that. I never knew there was a 'issue' between the TNIV and the ESV folks.

[opus86]

The NKJV is about my favorite.

Ditto. Running a close second (for me) is the NAS.

[444Flyer]

"Why is revising/correcting needed?" Man thinks he can improve on God's original intent and message. NEVER a good idea...going all the way back to the Garden.

[Cicero]

I have taught the Bible as literature a number of times, and I’ve looked at many of these translations. Most of the new ones are dreadful—inaccurate and clunky.

I still prefer the King James version. Of the modernized texts, I preferred the Revised Standard Version. Unfortunately, that was updated by the New RSV, which is another piece of politically correct nonsense.

You can still find the RSV, but it’s not commonly used any more, unfortunately. So, I recommend the KJV. It’s not that hard to deal with “thee” and “thou,” it’s generally pretty accurate, and it’s magnificent prose.

[Caesar Soze]

Why is revising/correcting needed?

Short answer:

1. Changes in the text. Since 1984, more ancient copies of Biblical texts have been discovered, helping us establish a more faithful base text for translation. These changes have been incremental, and (IIRC) there have been no changes to the text of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or Novum Testamentum Graece, but changes to the apparati and the published fascicles of the Editio Critica Maior will inform the Committee on Biblical Translation and help them select the best readings. There has been a major revision of the Septuaginta, and I think another edition or two of the Stuttgart Vulgate, and those will help especially where the Hebrew is unclear.
3. New understanding of ancient languages. Scholars have made strides in the understanding of Hebrew with recent archaelogical discoveries and the study of cognate langauges.
4. Changes in English usage. The generic masculine pronoun is falling out of favor, especially among academe and the young. This is probably the most important impetus for a revision of the NIV.

More complete and specific justifications for translation or revision can be found in the preface of most Bibles.

[Sherman Logan]

The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it. So in some verses, references to "sons of God" became "children of God," for example.

If true, I have no problem with that. Certainly the biases of past translators could have crept in, distorting the original meaning just as much as today's political correctness can. Except that past distortions were generally unconcious, not intentional.

[HonorInPa]

So you believe the the Bible, in it’s entirety originated in English in the current form? Basic biblical scholarship shows the profound changes and even errors introduced via translations over the years. I’m convinced God intends for us to read, absorb, contemplate, and act upon the MEANING of the words in Bible instead of focusing on the literal words. I know many fellow Christians who can tell me what the words ARE but not what they MEAN.

[BJClinton]

So we should be reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew?

[TaraP]

That’s not the point....If the original text was in Aramaic or Greek then the translation would be accurate. I do not believe they are trying to correct the translations to the original.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**Having trouble with the old KJV? Then get a dictionary and learn the language***

Some of the newer KJV have a bible dictionary in the back. I have two published in England (Oxford and Cambridge) that have them.

[BenKenobi]

Ugh, inclusive language. I had a NIV, but now I won’t and I’ll probably go over wholeheartedly to the Douay-Rheims.

Any other alternatives? I used to use the NIV for standard citations outside of the apocrypha, but now I won’t anymore, which is a real shame. :(

[TaraP]

If you understand the language....

[presently no screen name]

And let’s see what does GOD say about His Word and Who will instruct us in understanding.

The Holy Spirit will be the one to transmit the knowledge of God direct to us.

1. “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” (1 Corinthians 2:10)

2. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

3. “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH ...” (JOHN 16:13)

[presently no screen name]

I do not believe they are trying to correct the translations to the original.

I agree. Deception wrapped up in some truth to look appealing. Our country is infested with that ploy already.

[presently no screen name]

Your right! And needless to say, it’s PC which is void of TRUTH!

[presently no screen name]

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[dubie]

http://livingwaters.com/ on the right panel, listen to "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" Two of the best sermons I have ever heard in my life. Every person should listen.

[pattern-of-freedom]

“The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals...”

HUH?

The author of this Yahoo story is clueless, and writes out of stupifying ignorance. The Bible choice for conservative evanglicals is the 1611 King James Version. Second choice is the New King James Version. The NIV is dumbed-down, but not as dumbed-down at the Yahoo author’s miss-representation.

[TaraP]

Exactly my friend! GOD’s prophecy is happening in full swing!
Let’s those who have ears to hear...hear as Jesus said....

GOD Bless...

[Caesar Soze]

Interesting. I prefer the ESV, personally, but I used the NIV for years and the KJV before that. I never knew there was a 'issue' between the TNIV and the ESV folks.

I think the issue was blown out of proportion by both factions, but it did exist. There were several points of contention:

1. Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. The complementarians adopted the ESV, and the egalitarians adopted the TNIV. This was spurred by the "inclusive" language of the TNIV, and the Colorado Springs Guidelines on gender translation. But the translations themselves ended up being surprisingly similar with respect to gender: The TNIV placed inclusive renderings in the text, and the ESV would often place the same renderings in the footnotes.
2. Sacred language vs. natural language. The ESV translators sought to maintain the style and cadence of the KJV, the TNIV reads more like real people write and speak. Many people like the "Biblish" of the ESV, considering it an element of continuity with earlier Christians, appropriate for a sacred book, and beautiful in its own right. Many others reject it as artificial and see it as an impediment to witnessing, reading, and preaching.
3. Formal vs. functional translation. Or "literal vs. dynamic." The ESV was marketed as an "essentially literal" translation. The NIV is a more dynamic translation. Neither is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but to some people "literal" and "dynamic" are trigger words. There are more literal translations out there, and more dynamic translations, but the ESV and the TNIV were at the right place at the right time to become, briefly, the standards held by certain vocal proponents of each method.

I haven't read extensively from either the TNIV or the ESV, but it seems both have their place. (Or had, in TNIV's case.) I appreciate the need for a Bible in the contemporary vernacular, but I am also glad there are so many preserving the Tyndale line. Tyndale was strangled and burned in the sixteenth century, but his translation formed the base of the KJV, (N)RSV, and ESV--not too shabby. Of course, he was executed because he was rendering the Bible into the common tongue--so in that sense, the (T)NIV may be the true heir to the Tyndale Bible!