# New Version of the NIV threads (merger of 3 threads)



## matthew11v25 (Sep 1, 2009)

*TNIV Going Off the Market, New Version of the NIV Coming in 2011 *
Between Two Worlds: TNIV Going Off the Market, New Version of the NIV Coming in 2011


"The T-NIV is very divisive. It's not a unifying translation. And it was poorly handled in the marketplace. We need to undo the damage," says Maureen (Moe ) Girkins, president of Zondervan."


----------



## mvdm (Sep 1, 2009)

*NIV to be "updated"*

Given the history of the NIV and TNIV, I suspect this new effort is not going to turn out well:

Best-selling Bible to be updated - Faith- msnbc.com


----------



## Webservant (Sep 1, 2009)

*NIV to be "updated"*

*We stopped using NIV probably 3 years ago. Will this make a bit of difference to anyone here?*

*World’s most popular Bible to be revised*

*Some gender terms could get makeover in first update in quarter century*

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 2:52 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept . 1, 2009 


The world's most-popular Bible 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. (link to remainder of article)


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 1, 2009)

Let's be thankful God has stopped the man influenced distortions in the TNIV, and pray and communicate to Zondervan the need to faithfully translate the Word in the fear of God.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 1, 2009)

I hope the few good aspects of the TNIV (and there are a few!) are kept, and all the rest is chucked. Going in the direction of formal equivalence will help - even the NLT has gotten more literal in its recent revisions (though this isn't saying much).


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2009)

> The world's most-popular Bible 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.



That isn't right. The most recent version of the NIV, the TNIV, is less than 10 years old. 

And I have no interest in withdrawing my personal boycott of Zondervan for their role in furthering this agenda.


----------



## Berean (Sep 1, 2009)

Way back when in the '80s or so we used to support the International Bible Society. They owned the copyright, I believe, to the NIV. Then came reports of the "TNIV" with all its garbage. I wrote them and asked. They wrote me back and denied the whole thing. "Just a rumor", they said. Shortly thereafter the TNIV was published. I boycott Zondervan and whatever it is the International Bible Society is calling itself these days. Liars.

From a news article today:



> Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV's overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more *transparent*



There's that word I keep hearing out of D.C.


----------



## dr_parsley (Sep 2, 2009)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I hope the few good aspects of the TNIV (and there are a few!) are kept, and all the rest is chucked. Going in the direction of formal equivalence will help - even the NLT has gotten more literal in its recent revisions (though this isn't saying much).



One example of a good thing - I was intrigued by the TNIVs take on Ecclesiastes 11:1-2:

KJV:
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days. Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.

TNIV:
Ship your grain across the sea; after many days you may receive a return. Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.

As for me I'm with the ESV because it's non-profit compared to Zondervan making profits for NewsCorp to use against us elsewhere. That's a sufficient reason for me.

The problem with manipulation of genders in a nutshell: if the biblical writers were misogynists then the reader needs to know about it so he can better perform his personal exegesis; so if it's covered up then it damages his reading. If they weren't misogynists, then leave it alone. Either case ==> Leave it alone.


----------



## busdriver72 (Sep 2, 2009)

Is it just me, or does the NIV tend to interpret in a few places rather than translate?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Sep 2, 2009)

Rupert Murdoch owns Zonderven. I think he has an agenda.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 2, 2009)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Rupert Murdoch owns Zonderven. I think he has an agenda.



Only $$$.

I do not believe that Murdoch has influenced the theological direction of Zondervan. However, I had lost much of my confidence in Zondervan from before NewsCorp took it over. It just isn't the same company as during my college and seminary days ('71-'77).


----------



## Bad Organist (Sep 2, 2009)

Hi,

I was wondering of late when I would hear of the next new wonderful translation coming out. It has been awhile now.

Personally, I think the English language has way too many versions of the Scriptures. It is like going to an ice cream bar, and having to select among dozens of flavours.

I'm not sure the Church of Christ needs any new translations or revisions of versions right now. There is too much confusion now in the marketplace.

I believe that Bible publishing has become like just another commodity. Just a marketplace that has "choice". And just like dairy products, they have a best before date on them. When the marketplace doesn't fancy the once "new and improved" version anymore, publishers, bible societies, translators move to something else.

I believe this attitude has lowered the Christian's esteem for the scriptures, and even more so the outside world. Even more so today, it seems there is less reading and memorization than when there were only 1 or 2 versions around.

I have one translation that says in it's introduction that each generation needs a fresh translation in its own language. This means that they (the publishers, translation committees, bible societies) are saying that language changes so much as to be nigh incomprehensible in a single generation. Also they mention about bible research advancing so much, that much recent scholarship needs to be included in new versions. To me it sounds like a make work project for some under-employed academics. I Don't have a university degree and have no problem reading english from the 16th century onwards. In fact I don't think english has changed (as far as the Bible is concerned) all that much since the late 19th century. I also don't see much evidence of new things coming from so-called recent advances. Where changes are made in some of the new ones, the changes have me scratching my head.

Does anyone ask, whether any of these translations are of God, or of man or of the devil? Does God approve of all these efforts? 

Do all these versions bring clarity to the Church of Christ? Or do they bring confusion.

Is it biblical to have fan-clubs of the various translations?

Seems to me that the unchanging eternal Word of God has become man's temporary version of God's Word. The eternal, timeless quality is not desired anymore.

So the NIV is undergoing it's first revision in a quarter century. Actually it should be the 3rd revision - the first 2 revisions are now considered missteps. And then they say that the NIV and the TNIV will be discarded once the new revision is out. That to me shows how much they really value the present NIV. You see, it is just another commodity. 

And so on it goes. Our church is on it's 4rth bible version in less than 25 years. I'm sure the powers that be will want to change again in a few years. And in the mean-time the folk seem to know less scripture, speak less about the bible, memorize it less, etc. Not a good habit to get into. 

I don't have the answers to all that is wrong in the Church of Christ or about all these bible versions. I do know the Church speaks with a confused voice and generally has a low view of the scriptures. I'm sure if there were a single church sanctioned Bible, the Church would speak with greater authority. After-all, the Bible is God's gift to the Church, not to some publisher, individual, bible-society etc. 

Arie Vandenberg
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2009)

Al Mohler has a nice balanced statement on the subject, posted on Tuesday: Dr. Mohler's Blog


----------



## reformedminister (Sep 3, 2009)

Bad Organist said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering of late when I would hear of the next new wonderful translation coming out. It has been awhile now.
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Igor (Sep 4, 2009)

Well, good move, but... I have been using and cherishing the NIV for about 15 years (it became my favorite translation in spite of all its shortcomings, which are many; I tried to switch to something more literal and simply couldn't do it) - reading it every day, memorizing from it.
It's OK if I have to shell out another 50 or 70 bucks for a new version (I will have to get at least two copies - one for home and one for travel), but now I don't feel like memorizing any more from already sentenced-to-become-outdated translation. (May sound strange and even silly for somebody, but I am kind of perfectionist.) And, I guess, the new one will be replaced just as well after another 10, 20, or 25 years. Seems to be a process that is never ending and out of control. I totally agree with *Bad Organist*:


> the unchanging eternal Word of God has become man's temporary version of God's Word. The eternal, timeless quality is not desired anymore.


Has the English language really changed that much? I have a degree in Linguistics and English was my major at University (kind of "Ivy League" school of the former Soviet Union). Much of our time we spent reading novels by Oscar Wilde, John Galsworthy (a hundred years old!), and even the "modern" ones (by Salinger, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.) were still older than the "outdated" NIV. Perhaps I missed something?
I think I should switch to the old good KJV: at least I can be sure that, "outdated" as it is, it will stand for another 400 years (it will last my time anyway).


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 29, 2009)

Isn't God amazing for preserving his people, in spite of all the shortcomings of copyists, translators and false teachers who have come and gone!
 
Imagine that for so much of the Church's history the Old Testament was not read in its original languages?

I think that the English world probably doesn't need another translation of the Bible, although this will certainly not deter companies from producing them.

Let me just quickly put in a challenge to any one who has a burden for the gospel going to language groups that have NEVER heard about Christ. I would encourage you to consider bible translation! Of the 6900 language groups in the world, a mere 800 or so of them have a bible or portions in their own language. All of our laments of our impoverished translations pale in comparison to those language who have yet to receive their first lousy translation - and even so, how desperate they are to have it!


----------



## Berean (Sep 29, 2009)

This is the International Bible Society's new name: Biblica Biblica | International Bible Society and Send The Light | IBS-STL Global



> About Biblica
> 
> * Biblica is the new name for IBS-STL Global.
> * IBS stands for International Bible Society, which has been translating and distributing the Bible for 200 years.
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 30, 2009)

A few factoids on this story from World magazine (9/26/09), arguably the leader in the charge against the TNIV a few years back. These pieces come from a column by Joel Belz:



> There's wonderful irony in the news that it took a woman to produce a breakthrough in the battle over gender-inclusive Bibles.
> 
> Moe Girkins, who early in 2008 became president and CEO of Zondervan Publishing Co., quickly developed a concern about the collapse over the last decade of Zondervan's worldwide dominance in Bible sales . . .
> 
> That's the situation Moe Girkins inherited when she took over the 75-year-old Zondervan early last year. Coming as a seasoned corporate executive but a relatively new evangelical believer, she impressed many with her ability to pick up the nuances necessary to operate in the complex evangelical milieu. Indeed, she had already personally taken on a graduate degree program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill. So it didn't take her long to appreciate that some serious issues needed to be addressed. "It's not just the sales," Girkins told me on the phone late last year. "I'm concerned that we have Christians who are still upset and even angry at each other over 12-year-old issues that ought to have been resolved." I could tell she meant business.



Also interesting are the comments by Wayne Grudem, possibly the leading scholarly critic of the TNIV . . .



> Wayne Grudem, professor at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona and a frequent critic of early NIV revisions (see "Changing God's words," Feb. 25, 2005), praised the new action—while also noting that he hopes over 3,600 "unjustified changes" in the TNIV will be dealt with to get the NIV in synch with the original Hebrew and Greek sources.



Note the cautious, but approving words by World's Belz . . .



> Here at WORLD, where the story of the NIV revisions was first given public attention in a 1997 cover story (see "Femme Fatale," March 29, 1997), I too am grateful for the straightforward humility and grace modeled by Zondervan, Biblica, and the CBT—even while noting that I may still disagree on some key issues. In the press conference, Girkins sidestepped a specific question about whether WORLD had been right in calling the first revision a "stealth Bible." "We're not saying the TNIV was a stealth Bible," she said. "But the ways it was brought to market weren't transparent." Transparency, she said, will be a dominant goal from now on "in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism." I applaud that refreshing commitment.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 30, 2009)

I've honestly given up on the new translations and use them only for research, cross reference, and internet posts.

I'm going to spend my time with the KJV. It makes the most sense to me.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 30, 2009)

busdriver72 said:


> Is it just me, or does the NIV tend to interpret in a few places rather than translate?



It's not you. The NIV is very paraphrastic.

The ESV will be the translation we use in heaven!


----------

