# The Once and Future NIV.



## etexas (Jan 13, 2010)

OK! Sorry, I am a fan of Arthurian Legend and, that popped into my head. Anyway! I saw an older thread about the "NIV 2011", lot of people guessing "Where are they going with it?" I wondered TNIV...Dead in the water, NIV 1984 slowly, but surely giving up market share. I wondered if they were going to "Stealth-Repackage" the TNIV! A few odd changes, THEN...I read an ESV Translator talking about how he was happy to be working on the NNIV....Hmmmm plot thickens! It seems that actually at least another ESV translator might well be taking on the new Model....so........are they rolling back, and making it "conservative" and if there is at least one ESV translator on this...(I forget his name I will have to backtrack for it, I saw it on his own blog however, Happy to be on the project..." now another "key word" is Translators! Are they going to also try for more Literal???? It is a more you know the less I know thing. My head hurts and I am back to where ARE they going...thoughts??????


----------



## Wayne (Jan 13, 2010)

NNIV ??? Not so New International Version ???


----------



## larryjf (Jan 13, 2010)

Here's a list of folks involved with the committee (from NIV Bible Update)...

Ken Barker, USA, Retired, Independent Bible Church

Craig Blomberg, USA, Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, Alliance of Renewal Churches

Jeannine K. Brown, USA, Associate Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary, St. Paul

Gordon Fee, Canada, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., Pentecostal

R. T. France, (Vice-Chair), United Kingdom, Retiree, Anglican

David Instone-Brewer, United Kingdom, Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament, Tyndale House,Cambridge, UK Ordained Baptist Minister; now attending a church affiliated with the Evangelical Alliance in the UK

Karen Jobes, (Secretary) , USA, Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Wheaton College, Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Douglas Moo, (Chair), Blanchard Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College, Independent Bible Church

Mark Strauss, USA, Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary, San Diego, CA., Baptist General Conference

Paul Swarup, India, Pastor and Teacher, Christ Church, Noida, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, India Church of North India

Larry Walker, USA, Retiree, Southern Baptist

Michael Williams, USA, Professor of Old Testament, Calvin Theological Seminary, Christian Reformed Church

Ron Youngblood, USA, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew, Bethel Seminary, San Diego, CA, Independent Baptist

Senior and Honorary Members (still active in committee work):

Bruce Waltke, USA,

Professor Emeritus, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 13, 2010)

Another interesting note from NIV Bible Update



> As part of the process of revision for 2011, the CBT has committed to a complete review of every gender-related change they have made since the publication of the 1984 edition.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 13, 2010)

If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all? There are plenty of literal translations that the NNIV is unlikely to surpass (NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, etc.), and those already have repute among those who care about a literal translation. Frankly, I think we should take a break on the translating for a while. It's getting nauseating, and I don't believe it's helping anybody much.


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 13, 2010)

etexas said:


> OK! Sorry, I am a fan of Arthurian Legend and, that popped into my head. Anyway! I saw an older thread about the "NIV 2011", lot of people guessing "Where are they going with it?" I wondered TNIV...Dead in the water, NIV 1984 slowly, but surely giving up market share. I wondered if they were going to "Stealth-Repackage" the TNIV! A few odd changes, THEN...I read an ESV Translator talking about how he was happy to be working on the NNIV....Hmmmm plot thickens! It seems that actually at least another ESV translator might well be taking on the new Model....so........are they rolling back, and making it "conservative" and if there is at least one ESV translator on this...(I forget his name I will have to backtrack for it, I saw it on his own blog however, Happy to be on the project..." now another "key word" is Translators! Are they going to also try for more Literal???? It is a more you know the less I know thing. My head hurts and I am back to where ARE they going...thoughts??????


 
You are probably thinking of Bill Mounce--he worked on the ESV and is now working on the NIV 2011. My guess is that the NIV 2011 will be more conservative, if by conservative you mean less gender inclusive language. However, one must keep in mind that principles of translation are different from those of the ESV. While some of us my cry out about the use of "brothers and sisters" to translate the word adelphoi, it is perfectly suitable for the NIV 2011 because of the translation philosophy associated with the project. Whether you agree with the translation philosophy is a different story. So in summary, there will probably be less gender inclusive language than the TNIV and more than the NIV 1984 or ESV. If you are looking for a more literal translation, you're probably looking at the wrong bible because that is not the main driving force of the NIV 2011. If you want a more literal translation, you should probably stick with one that is committed to this philosophy, such as the HCSB, ESV, NKJV, or NASB.


----------



## etexas (Jan 13, 2010)

jpfrench81 said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > OK! Sorry, I am a fan of Arthurian Legend and, that popped into my head. Anyway! I saw an older thread about the "NIV 2011", lot of people guessing "Where are they going with it?" I wondered TNIV...Dead in the water, NIV 1984 slowly, but surely giving up market share. I wondered if they were going to "Stealth-Repackage" the TNIV! A few odd changes, THEN...I read an ESV Translator talking about how he was happy to be working on the NNIV....Hmmmm plot thickens! It seems that actually at least another ESV translator might well be taking on the new Model....so........are they rolling back, and making it "conservative" and if there is at least one ESV translator on this...(I forget his name I will have to backtrack for it, I saw it on his own blog however, Happy to be on the project..." now another "key word" is Translators! Are they going to also try for more Literal???? It is a more you know the less I know thing. My head hurts and I am back to where ARE they going...thoughts??????
> ...


Yes, it was Mounce! I could not recall when I started this. I will buy one....I OWN a TNIV, I use the AV as my Primary, it is interesting to watch this.


----------



## Bad Organist (Jan 13, 2010)

austinww said:


> If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all? There are plenty of literal translations that the NNIV is unlikely to surpass (NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, etc.), and those already have repute among those who care about a literal translation. Frankly, I think we should take a break on the translating for a while. It's getting nauseating, and I don't believe it's helping anybody much.


 
Hi,

I agree with you that the Church of Christ here on earth does not need another English language translation right now. But why stop now. It is a commodity these days. If there is a market, somebody somewhere will try to fill it. Or somebody will "create a need" and so set about to create a product to fill that need.

My basic point is that really there has not been a "need" for a new translation for quite a while, I would say at least15 or 20 years now. Even in 1990 there were plenty of flavours of Bibles in English to go round.

In fact I think it would be a great blessing if there was only one officially recognized bible in English by the Church of Christ here on earth. I know though, that I am in the minority here.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 13, 2010)

austinww said:


> If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all?



Money.


----------



## etexas (Jan 13, 2010)

Bad Organist said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all? There are plenty of literal translations that the NNIV is unlikely to surpass (NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, etc.), and those already have repute among those who care about a literal translation. Frankly, I think we should take a break on the translating for a while. It's getting nauseating, and I don't believe it's helping anybody much.
> ...


 No!!! you are not alone.....if it were my call you could use the AV OR the AV!!!!!


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 13, 2010)

Bad Organist said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all? There are plenty of literal translations that the NNIV is unlikely to surpass (NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, etc.), and those already have repute among those who care about a literal translation. Frankly, I think we should take a break on the translating for a while. It's getting nauseating, and I don't believe it's helping anybody much.
> ...


 
As much as I love the free market, I don't think profit should be the motivation behind translating the Bible. There is too much temptation to translate on the basis of what people will buy rather than faithfulness to the text. I think we are agreed there. Ideally, it should be done under the supervision of the Church and not through an independent agency, if a new English translation were needed.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 13, 2010)

Ivan said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all?
> ...


 
I wouldn't expect them to be able to get in on the market much there, though. People who care about literal Bible translation don't trust the NIV much. I would expect them to lose customers this way, not gain them.


----------



## MMasztal (Jan 13, 2010)

austinww said:


> If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all? There are plenty of literal translations that the NNIV is unlikely to surpass (NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, etc.), and those already have repute among those who care about a literal translation. Frankly, I think we should take a break on the translating for a while. It's getting nauseating, and I don't believe it's helping anybody much.



I think this is more about "business" than trying to get a better translation. Christian media is a business like any other and Zondervan, the publishers of the NIV, is losing sales to NKJV and of late, the ESV. A "new" translation coupled with Zondervan's market presence is a ticket to increased profitability.


----------



## etexas (Jan 13, 2010)

Wayne said:


> NNIV ??? Not so New International Version ???


 Sorry that is "my" name for it....the New New International Version!


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 13, 2010)

Whatever the original initiative for the project (whether with the publishing house or with academics), it seems to me that the problem is pretty multilayered.

1. Publishing houses will and will always look to make a buck, especially now that they are owned by groups like News Corp.

2. Academics will ALWAYS have quibbles with how somebody else translated this word, that preposition, or some odd grammatical construction. It probably does not take much to induce them to lend their considerable linguistic skills to producing a "better" translation. You can take honorable motives of kingdom advance, service to Christ, and less honorable ones of wanting to see your name in print. It doesn't matter how you mix up the motives, there will NEVER be an end of scholars willing to tinker and improve what already exists.

3. From a psychological perspective, academics tend to be analyticals. And, from my experience, most analyticals have never met a solution that they consider final. They are always seeking more data, more points of view, more evidence, to make a more perfect decision.

4. We are awash with PhDs in Biblical studies in this country. As my daughter used to say when she was 2 yrs 9 months when asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, "An exegete." When asked what specialty, she would opine, "hermeneutics" or "pentateuchal criticism." When challenged that she did not even know what the words meant, she would reduce the job of the biblical scholar to one of trying to "'splain the Bible." Indeed, with so many professional exegetes trying to "'splain the Bible," I'm surprised that there are not MORE translations.

5. We must give at least lip service to the fact that there really are differences in translation philosophy that help generate new projects. And, if you take a dynamic equivalent approach in principle, wouldn't you also be motivated to keep changing it every few years so that it more perfectly reflects the nuances of the current receptor language?

6. It is unfortunate (in my opinion) that we have so many translations. They have changed the playing field significantly from my childhood when pretty much everybody knew what the Bible said and sounded like (i.e., KJV). Whether Scripture memorization, a common standard for preaching and teaching, or any number of other lesser rerasons, we have both gained and lost something of value in our plethora of options and choices. Easier to understand? Certainly. More confusing to lay people? Absolutely.

7. But, bottom line, I'm as much a part of the problem as the next guy. I keep alternating between my NKJV and ESV, with a couple of R.L. Allan KJV's in reserve. At this point, there is probably no going back.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 13, 2010)

This will be interesting to see. Dr. Fee is egalitarian big time and uses his "how to read the Bible" book to espouse his views. If memory serves me correctly, he uses NT Greek to prove his views and not the "well that was then, this is now" argument. Most of the other guys I have no clue who they are, but Dr. Fee stood out.


----------



## etexas (Jan 13, 2010)

A fascinating aside here my Brethren. Some think it no accident that 2011 is the release......400th Birthday as the King James! I say this NOT as King Jimmy man! It is interesting that while the NIV did capture "TOP-SPOT" in CBA sales over the years, it NEVER could remove the AV from what is usually in the top three! Is it only me, or is it a "coincidence" they might either be trying to steal the thunder from the AVs 400th Birthday or at least piggy back it??? It matters not if you are an AV user or not, it is simply something to ponder!!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 14, 2010)

Hi:

2011 is the 400th Anniversary of the printing of the King James Version - I wonder if the NIV is seeking to steal some thunder?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## johnbugay (Jan 14, 2010)

The first Bible I ever bought for myself, back in around 1980, was an NIV, and I very much "cut my teeth" with it. Whatever the motives for producing it, I would be glad to see a more conservative standard-bearer for the "readability-and-dynamic-equivalency" school of thought to be available "out there." 

(Now I have a Reformation Study Bible, NKJV as my personal devotional Bible, with an ESV handy.)


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 14, 2010)

Ivan said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > If they decided to go for more literal, why would they bother making another translation at all?
> ...


 
Just venting one of my pet peeves ... if it is the Word of God, then He owns the copyright. Period. That is why I roll my eyes when translations carry a copyright by men. I know, I know .. intellectual property and work of translators. It is just an irrational pet peeve.


----------



## etexas (Jan 14, 2010)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> 2011 is the 400th Anniversary of the printing of the King James Version - I wonder if the NIV is seeking to steal some thunder?
> 
> ...


 Rob...my main man! Uhhh...Did you see the Post prior to yours......


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 14, 2010)

johnbugay said:


> The first Bible I ever bought for myself, back in around 1980, was an NIV, and I very much "cut my teeth" with it. Whatever the motives for producing it, I would be glad to see a more conservative standard-bearer for the "readability-and-dynamic-equivalency" school of thought to be available "out there."
> 
> (Now I have a Reformation Study Bible, NKJV as my personal devotional Bible, with an ESV handy.)


 
I read the NIV for most of my young teen years, and it still frustrates me that whenever I'm quoting the Bible, I often find myself quoting the NIV! Even though I have read the same verses in other translations, the NIV reading is stuck in my head. Oh well. I guess it's better than not remembering the Bible verses.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 15, 2010)

Hi:

Sorry I missed that one. However, if you include the NKJV as part of the KJVsales, then the KJV still outsells all other translations!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## etexas (Jan 15, 2010)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Sorry I missed that one. However, if you include the NKJV as part of the KJVsales, then the KJV still outsells all other translations!
> 
> ...


LOL! That's OK Rob...I thought it was funny, you used some of the same words I used! But another good point, I find the strong NKJV interesting! Nelson as far as Marketing, is NOT putting a huge amount of $$$$ on promoting the NKJV, in fact they are more focused on the NLT. They no longer have a dedicated site for the New Jimmy...YET....it has taken down the NIV in sales a number of times in the past 2 years or so....


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 15, 2010)

Leaving aside the textual critical issues, I find the NKJV superior to the NIV . . . period.

The majority of evangelicals are egalitarians. This will tend to tilt them toward the new NIV, NLT, etc. The ESV, NKJV, KJV, and NAS will be the Bible translations of choice for non-egalitarians.

[That comment is single factor based, namely the issue of women. I did not muddy the waters with issues of TR vs. CT or philosophy of translation.]


----------



## etexas (Jan 15, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Leaving aside the textual critical issues, I find the NKJV superior to the NIV . . . period.
> 
> The majority of evangelicals are egalitarians. This will tend to tilt them toward the new NIV, NLT, etc. The ESV, NKJV, KJV, and NAS will be the Bible translations of choice for non-egalitarians.
> 
> [That comment is single factor based, namely the issue of women. I did not muddy the waters with issues of TR vs. CT or philosophy of translation.]


hank you Dennis! I too in the thread really wanted to avoid Byzantine Line vs CT! Your point on the NKJV is good as well, it is very accurate in cases rivaling the NASB, and the bonus of good footnotes." Even I as an AV man for my "primary" credit the NKJV as being one of the most under-rated. But it is odd that Nelson hardly focuses on the NKJV YET it seems to have grabbed "inertia" on it's own merits in the last 2 years! Which brings us full-circle to the NIV 2011...is this (The NKJV having the growth it has had given it came out in...82...83) yet another reason the NIV is back on the "table"! Oh, and....to my knowledge....upon the 2011 release....they will end printing of both the TNIV, and....NIV 1984!


----------

