When should a translation be revised and updated?

[Dachaser]

As the NASB is due to have another revision sometime 2017, and the Niv was last done 2011.

What would be a good reason to actually update and revise the Bible version, as the texts used to base translation upon have not really changed that much, or have they?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

While I admit some translated English renderings in the received text of the Reformed that can be improved, until such time as circumstances permit the English speaking church to become unified as they once were, such that the unified church could establish and support a faithful revision, any ongoing updates by non-church related entities are not really a matter of great concern to me. Given that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible church (WCF 25.2)—it is within the church that the Gospel is to be found—it falls to the church to deal with revisions when they are deemed needed.

 

[Edward]

What would be a good reason to actually update and revise the Bible version

When sales of your current version lag because buyers are switching to a new version from another publisher.

 

[arapahoepark]

We should regulate the English language first so millennials can actually learn how to read...

 

[Dachaser]

While I admit some translated English renderings in the received text of the Reformed that can be improved, until such time as circumstances permit the English speaking church to become unified as they once were, such that the unified church could establish and support a faithful revision, any ongoing updates by non-church related entities are not really a matter of great concern to me. Given that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible church (WCF 25.2)—it is within the church that the Gospel is to be found—it falls to the church to deal with revisions when they are deemed needed.

Would the Received text of the reformed mean that you are saying the KJV/NKJV then. and not modern versions such as NASB/Esv that work off the Critical Greek text?

 

[Ed Walsh]

until such time as circumstances permit the English speaking church to become unified as they once were, such that the unified church could establish and support a faithful revision

Don't you all long for such days? There is a prophecy I am thinking of that is in the form of a prayer. But considering the One praying we can be sure that it is also a prophecy that will have its fulfillment.

John 17:20, 21 (KJV)
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

[JimmyH]

Leaving presuppositions as to the RT versus the CT aside, and listening to the message, instead of condemning the messenger, NT Wright lambasted the 1984 NIV translators for their rendering of Paul's epistles. Particularly in Romans. Below is a quote from his book Justification, and below that, the 2011 NIV translation which follows Wright's preference for what should be the correct translation.

Say that to say, when translators feel they've gotten it wrong, a revision can be the vehicle to do it correctly the next time.

http://christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/nt-wright-slams-the-niv/

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known…. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…. [God] did this to demonstrate his justice… he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

In other words, “the righteousness of God” in Romans 3:21 is only allowed to mean “the righteous status which comes to people from God,” whereas the equivalent term in Romans 3:25 and Romans 3:26 clearly refers to God’s own righteousness – which is presumably why the NIV has translated it as “justice,” to avoid having the reader realize the deception. In the following paragraph, a similar telltale translation flaw occurs, to which again we shall return. In Romans 3:29, Paul introduces the question, “Is God the God of Jews only?” with the single-letter word e normally translated “or”; “Or is God the God of Jews only?” –in other words, if the statement of Romans 3:28 were to be challenged, it would look as though God were the God of Jews only. But the NIV, standing firmly in the tradition that sees no organic connection between justification by faith on the one hand and the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s people on the other, resists this clear implication by omitting the word altogether. Two straws in a clear and strong wind. And those blown along by this wind may well come to forget that they are reading a visibly and demonstrably flawed translation, and imagine that this is what Paul really said.” (N.T. Wright; Justification, pp. 51-53)

21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.22This righteousness is given through faith inh Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—26he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

 

[Dachaser]

Leaving presuppositions as to the RT versus the CT aside, and listening to the message, instead of condemning the messenger, NT Wright lambasted the 1984 NIV translators for their rendering of Paul's epistles. Particularly in Romans. Below is a quote from his book Justification, and below that, the 2011 NIV translation which follows Wright's preference for what should be the correct translation.

Say that to say, when translators feel they've gotten it wrong, a revision can be the vehicle to do it correctly the next time.

http://christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/nt-wright-slams-the-niv/

I would be very leery of that new revision though, as NT Wright has some "interesting but wrong " viewpoints regarding Pauline Justification!

 

[JimmyH]

I would be very leery of that new revision though, as NT Wright has some "interesting but wrong " viewpoints regarding Pauline Justification!

A point well taken, but comparing his view of the 1984 translation with the 2011, it seems he is in line with the KJV translation. He may be wrong about some things, but not necessarily his criticism of the verses he found fault with in the NIV '84 version. Particularly 25b and v,26.