So who thinks the new NIV will look just like the old TNIV?
Can these guys ever keep their word? What happened to: The NIV is now a fixed translation and will remain unchanged.
Ben
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
New NIV?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Ben44 |
New NIV? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 20 (09/01/2009 20:30:41) |
|
||
|
Wes Cottonhort |
|||
|
Posts: 50 (09/01/2009 20:35:59) |
I never cared for the NIV anyway, so the only thing I can say to this news is YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!
Another day, another new translation. And on and on and on............. |
||
|
Euthymius |
|||
|
Posts: 2012 (09/02/2009 07:15:27) |
It's not only the KJVOs who will be pleased by the point of the photo below, but also those of us who strongly favor formal equivalence over dynamic
paraphrase and politically correct gender-non-specific nonsense....Who knows, perhaps someday someone on the (T)NIV Committee will finally figure out what
"marketing blunder" and failing to go along with the supposedly agreed-upon Colorado Springs Guidelines really means....
|
||
|
kiwiray |
|||
|
Posts: 96 (09/02/2009 12:20:48) |
I actually quite like the TNIV.
"And, behold, I tell you these things that you may learn wisdom; that you may learn that when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only
in the service of your God". (Mosiah ch1.49 - RLDS version)
|
||
|
gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 1036 (09/02/2009 14:16:42) Registered User |
What is a shame is that with all the money they make off the NIV they could make it more accurate, but they will not.
|
||
|
FunkyDL |
|||
|
Posts: 29 (09/02/2009 16:02:26) |
Ben44 wrote:IMO, the CBT (now IBS) never really wanted to accept the Colorado Springs Guidelines. They pretty much had to accept them or face a backlash that would kill their money-maker. Their hearts were never really in it and have been trying to find a way around it ever since. The way the TNIV came about is evidence of that. I think it is proof that IBS has wanted to replace the 84 NIV with a neutered version for the last 15 years, and this is their 3rd attempt to do so while trying to avoid jeopardizing their income stream. Good luck with that! To say the least, it will be interesting to see the reaction to the new work and what happens to the current NIV in 2011. Which brings up the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Starting with the mid 80s, the NIV began replacing the KJV as the de-facto translation of the Southern Baptist Convention. The uproar that resulted in the Colorado Springs Guidelines also spooked the SBC. They were hitching their cart to a version that they had no influence over. Thus the project that resulted in the HCSB, which I consider slightly better than the NIV in accuracy, but at times it dances with 2 left feet. Sadly, I told my wife that if you ask 100 laymen (or women) in our church why Lifeway (the Southern Baptist publishing arm) now uses the HCSB as their standard translation, I doubt 5 of them could answer the question. |
||
|
Ben44 |
|||
|
Posts: 21 (09/02/2009 20:13:51) |
Re: The HCSB, I really wanted to like this Bible, and most individual verses read OK, but to sit down and spend time reading it is a painful experience. It is
very awkward, especially for those who are used to the Tyndale tradition Bibles: KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. Stylisically the HCSB is terrible to read.
I like the NASB and NKJV. I'm trying to warm up to the ESV because it may be the most readable in the Tyndale Bible tradition. The NIV producers seem to me schizophrehic at this point, madly defending a terrible translation they promised never to make (the TNIV), and promising sincerely to leave the NIV alone, yet could mangle it in 2011, and finally apologizing for the TNIV once, and probably only because, it failed in the market place. The biggest problem I see with Crossway and the ESV is that they have trouble getting their Bibles into places like Walmart, and they have trouble competing price-wise with Zondervan and Holman. There never has been a true successor to the KJV, and I'm definitely not a KJV-Only, I just haven't seen anything take on that mantle except that the NIV seemed closest to doing so if sales mean anything. I would feel a lot better if a Formal Equivalence Bible was leading the way as the KJV once did, and the owners of that copyright were not 'messing around' with the translation like Zondervan's people are doing with the NIV. Ben |
||
 mko |
|||
|
Posts: 649 (09/03/2009 06:03:56) |
I wish I were a better translator.
I can push myself so far then I break and have to take a while to recoup, if I do. Plus I'm limited to working with Latin because I don't know Hebrew or Greek. I suppose if I were able to set up a small group (perhaps I'll need to convert my current text over to html so I can put it out there more prominently on the 'net) I could get further. (adding: my avatar is a handwritten sample from Haggai 1) My own translation, while not explicitly a successor to the KJV tradition, has been greatly influenced by the KJV. So far I have translated Song of Songs, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and fragments of Psalms, Acts and 1 Corinthians. (I have consulted interlinears to mitigate "generational loss"; additionally where possible I relied on non-Vulgate Latin sources, namely Erasmus in the New Testament and the Juxta Hebraica Psalter which Jerome translated but which never really replaced the LXX-derived psalter already in use.)
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
|
Armchair Scholar |
|||
|
Posts: 1158 (09/03/2009 10:34:46) |
But it might give KJOs an excuse to write another book.
|
||
|
Euthymius |
|||
|
Posts: 2021 (09/03/2009 11:16:47) |
Anyone want to take bets that the KJVOs will credit their anti-(T)NIV diatribes as the reason for
the cessation of such?
|
||
|
Scott McClare |
|||
|
Posts: 3211 (09/03/2009 21:21:04) |
Ben44 said:
The biggest problem I see with Crossway and the ESV is that they have trouble getting their Bibles into places like Walmart, and they have trouble competing price-wise with Zondervan and Holman. Slow and steady wins the race, as Aesop said. The ESV is growing in popularity, particularly online and with younger Reformed Christians, who are also growing in number. |
||
|
Ben44 |
|||
|
Posts: 22 (09/04/2009 11:12:28) |
Scott said:
Slow and steady wins the race, as Aesop said. The ESV is growing in popularity, particularly online and with younger Reformed Christians, who are also growing in number. I agree that ESV has probably done more online than any Bible publisher to attract attention to their version. I think the ESV online Study Bible is great, especially that you can listen to it in audio. Yet there something to be said for a wide variety of formats in print Bibles, as well as availability. I think ESV is slowly getting better, but they have a ways to go yet. I read somewhere that their print Study Bible weighs 4 lbs. that thing is a brick. Price and availability, if ESV can overcome those problems I think it could get wider acceptance. Re: TNIV and Zondervan: I dislike the idea of them playing 'loose and fast' with Bible translation, making it fit their agenda. Bible versions have become a business, and I don't like that at all, for when money becomes a priority in selling Bibles, then they are tempted to make the Bible 'suitable' to more people so they can sell more, and that is scary :-( Ben |
||
|
gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 1037 (09/04/2009 14:06:09) Registered User |
William Tyndale's translations are still the best ever. He was the first to translate from The Original Greek (and Hebrew) into English.
I have listened to most all "christian advertising" about Bibles, believed the advertising and tried the Bibles and became disappointed with them. Then I found out about William Tyndale and his translations. All I can say is take a look for yourselves, you will not be disappointed. |
||
|
amarillo |
|||
|
Posts: 3392 (09/05/2009 20:28:40) Administrator |
Ben44 wrote: well, it seems they're regretting locking up the language of the NIV and then bumbling the PR process for TNIV. now Moo's predicting not much of a change (or he might be trying not to say too much too early!): "I can predict that this is going to look 90 percent or more what the 1984 NIV looks like and 95 percent what the TNIV looks like," he said. "The changes are going to be a very small portion of the whole Scripture package." at any rate, it was fun reading some of the responses following the article!
Joseph Ng
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB |
||
|
mko |
|||
|
Posts: 652 (09/05/2009 21:21:45) |
...90% NIV84, 95% TNIV. Isn't that a contradiction?
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
|
amarillo |
|||
|
Posts: 3393 (09/06/2009 04:51:14) Administrator |
i thot it simply meant it looks a little more like the TNIV than the NIV?? not sure where the "contradiction" lies.
Joseph Ng
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB |
||
|
gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 1038 (09/06/2009 07:48:24) Registered User |
mko wrote: Not really. 90% like the old NIV, and even more like failed TNIV(95%) which leaves 5% for the "newest". |
||
|
BracLeighSpears |
|||
|
Posts: 1 (09/06/2009 12:45:37) |
I prefer KJV or American Standard, but sometimes do read NIV. Imho, NIV has mistranslated, and left out some things that others have included. It's
difficult to know what's accurate, unless we have access to original text, and understand it.
|
||
|
SAWBONES |
|||
|
Posts: 296 (09/06/2009 14:25:15) |
IMHO Zondervan and the CBT have put out too many poorly-justified editions of the NIV, and that too quickly.
The original circa 1978 version (whole Bible) of the NIV was a worthy effort originally begun with subsidy by what was then the New York International Bible Society, to provide a modern-but-dignified language English Bible, incorporating the latest and best text-critical information, with the benefit of the work of translation having been done by a team of scholars whose work was checked for euphonious English style. The copyright was soon purchased by Zondervan even before the publication of the first edition, but I believe that the NIV'84 revision was an improvement on the original, incorporating changes made on the basis of suggestions and recommendations from Bible scholars not on the CBT and from other readers of the original edition. So far, so good. Had the language changed so much since '84 or had such important new manuscript discoveries been made that either the TNIV or rNIV was needed? No. The TNIV is a "gender-neutral" or "gender-egalitarian" version produced to pander to a feminist political agenda. The rNIV is a "dumbed-down" version of the NIV supposedly for those with a limited English vocabulary. Although we already have several English versions of that sort, this one was supposedly required for those people with 1.) a limited English vocabulary or for whom English is a second language, who 2.) insist upon having a Bible of "NIV sort". Now as I've learned from perusing the Biblioblogs, there are indeed some ardent (even strident) feminists who are students and fanciers of the Bible, but they're certain to be a small minority of Bible buyers. There may also be a number of folks who speak little English and who are infatuated with the NIV, but certainly not very many. I believe Zondervan and the CBT made a marketing error with the TNIV and rNIV, apparently thinking that feminists and folks with limited-English-vocabulary would buy lots of these versions, but the obvious problem is that most feminists and poor English speakers simply aren't either Christians or Bible students, and aren't the folks doing most of the Bible purchasing. Now, there are a few Bible-linguist types out there in Blog-land who reportedly favor the TNIV over other versions for the sake of its colloquial English style as well as its gender-egalitarian philosophy, but they're a bunch who also despise the carry-over of Hebrew and Greek syntax into English and who accordingly very much seem to dislike the more "literal" English translations (unlike the seeming majority of Bible lovers), but yet again, they're very much in the minority among Bible purchasers. So now we're going to get another NIV in 2011 which will fix the "problems" with existing editions by both revision and judicious merging of elements of NIV'84 and TNIV? I'm not optimistic. I think they should have left the NIV'84 alone and not worried so much about being "fashionable" with periodic "updates". |
||
|
Euthymius |
|||
|
Posts: 2029 (09/06/2009 15:30:58) |
Re: "I can predict that this is going to look 90 percent or more what the 1984 NIV looks like and 95 percent what the TNIV looks like," he said. "The changes are going to be a very small portion of the whole Scripture package."
You know, when the TNIV was first rolled out, the statement then being made was that the TNIV itself was supposedly 95% the NIV.....but obviously that 5% portion being changed was enough to please the pro-feminist and egalitarian crowd, but also enough to kill the marketability of the TNIV. So I already have strong reservations about something now being touted as only 90% NIV (which is less than the TNIV originally claimed in parallel) but 95% TNIV.....The whole thing to me looks like a classic case of pushing "Hegelian dialectic" according to its actual subtle manner of two steps forward, one step back, just to get to the point originally desired.
Last Edited By: Euthymius
09/06/2009 15:34:23.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Ben44 |
|||
|
Posts: 23 (09/06/2009 16:28:48) |
Re: Tyndale:
I've read that 85% of the New testament (KJV) is Tyndale, and 75% of the Old Testament (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. Many memorable verses are thanks to his good work. I was trying to figure out why I could not warm up to the HCSB version and finally realized it was because it is Not in the Tyndale tradition, and thus felt so unfamiliar to me. The KJV clings to memory more than any version I've ever read, yet it would be nice to have a Bible in modern English that has that same power. The NASB is pretty good, but rough reading in the OT. The NKJV is pretty good, but some sentences are awkward because it tries too hard to line up with the original KJV. The ESV might be the answer, but I suspect it will need a few more revisions and polish to improve stylistically. Ben |
||
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Quick Reply
|
|
