• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Could the SBC "railed" ON Niv 2011 Because have OWN Bible the HCSB?

J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
read that SBC wanted to use Niv for their own study materials, but refused to pay the price to Zondervan to get rights to use it, so part of reason for getting behing the HCSB

Any truth in that? Could that be reason why blasted the NIV 2011 for use, as was denied and made own version the HCSB instead?
 
StefanM

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
mandym said:
This doesn't make sense. How would one be related to the other?
Click to expand...

$$$$$, potentially. Bash the NIV, knock down the sales, potentially open up new sales for the HCSB?

I don't necessarily buy the argument, but it is theoretically possible. I don't think the rejection of the 2011 revision has anything to do with the negotiations with Zondervan, though. The HCSB was around long before the NIV 2011.
 
M

mandym

New Member
StefanM said:
$$$$$, potentially. Bash the NIV, knock down the sales, potentially open up new sales for the HCSB?
Click to expand...

That would be quite an indictment. However, starting threads about possible reasons for coming against the NIV and then ascribing ill motives is called gossip without any knowledge of the real reason.
 
B

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
read that SBC wanted to use Niv for their own study materials, but refused to pay the price to Zondervan to get rights to use it, so part of reason for getting behing the HCSB

Any truth in that? Could that be reason why blasted the NIV 2011 for use, as was denied and made own version the HCSB instead?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I heard a few years ago when the HCSB first came out.
 
S

sag38

Active Member
It is true. Zondervan was charging a boat load so LifeWay developed it's own translation to save money. That is fact. As to a conspiracy to hurt the NIV, that is nothing but gossip.
 
preachinjesus

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
read that SBC wanted to use Niv for their own study materials, but refused to pay the price to Zondervan to get rights to use it, so part of reason for getting behing the HCSB

Any truth in that? Could that be reason why blasted the NIV 2011 for use, as was denied and made own version the HCSB instead?
Click to expand...

There is some truth to it. More of the story has to do with the SBC pulling the TNIV from Lifeway stores, a political tug of war over that, then the desire of the SBC to not have to pay exorbitant licensing fees. Also behind the translation was a desire to have an official SBC translation.

The SBC "blasted" the NIV2010 because it carried a lot of the translation methods of the TNIV. It was a pointless resolution and they shouldn't have passed it.

Nevertheless the HCSB is the standard translation for all SBC literature now. It's a good one. I use it every day. :thumbs:
 
H

Havensdad

New Member
NO, they "railed" ont the Niv 2011, because #1 There were revisions without a specific renaming (that is, people who don't know will think they are getting the original Niv, when they are not), and #2 some of those revisions include gender non-specific language where gender-specific language is called for...

Also, on a personal note, [snip - the author doesn't prefer the NIV, inflammatory words removed] NIV as well...WAY too much liberty taken in translation, at times. The HCSB is one of my two preferred translations, with the other being the ESV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

glfredrick

New Member
Havensdad said:
NO, they "railed" Ont the Niv 2011, because #1 There were revisions without a specific renaming (that is, people who don't know will think they are getting the original Niv, when they are not), and #2 some of those revisions include gender non-specific language where gender-specific language is called for...

Also, on a personal note, I detest the original NIV as well...WAY too much liberty taken in translation, at times. The HCSB is one of my two preferred translations, with the other being the ESV.
Click to expand...

This is much closer to the truth than the rampant speculation elsewhere in this thread. The HCSB was produced to fill a gap between the very loose and virtually impossible to concord NIV version well before the TNIV ever was hatched. That the HCSB never really sold or took off is another matter that has little to do with Zondervan. And, I believe that you will find a ton of Zondervan products in Baptist Book Stores and on LifeWay, so that is obviously not a factor.

I know several of the persons involved in the HCSB project. I also know the theological issues surrounding the TNIV and the revision in the NIV 2011, which works to remedy some of those (valid) issues in translation. When a translator or team takes the plain words in the original text and [snip - offensive to those who prefer that translation], it is time for a new and accurate translation to hit the shelves. That is precisely what the HCSB team intended. It is not gender neutral, it does not make light of God, and yet it does meet the need for a translation that can be read and comprehended by those without a higher level theological education. It is equivalent where equivalent translation works and switches to dynamic where dynamic makes a passage understandable. In that regard, it is unique among current translations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Havensdad said:
So you would encourage someone to read the New World Translation (JW)?
Click to expand...

If that is the only Bible they have access to, yes. I have seen people led to the Lord using a NWT and I don't doubt that they could even experience spiritual growth through it. I did mighty fine with an RSV and 'Good News for Modern Man' after I got saved.

As an aside, how come every one just assumes that the NWT is "worse-case scenario" when it comes to Bible Translations?
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Think thru the logic - SBC didn't want to spend $$ in rights to NIV translators so instead spent $$$$$$$$ to translate and publish there own??

Can we use the word "stupid" on the BB without getting some moderator on my case?? :laugh:

Not my fight. Enjoy a Holman at my office and an ESV at home. Used the NIV Study Bible for homeschool in the 90's and it was a refreshing loose translation that engendered good discussions with my kids.

But agree with "M" that this whole thread is gossip at most, and an evil agenda at worst.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Havensdad said:
NO, they "railed" ont the Niv 2011, because #1 There were revisions without a specific renaming (that is, people who don't know will think they are getting the original Niv, when they are not),
Click to expand...

So what?

and #2 some of those revisions include gender non-specific language where gender-specific language is called for...
Click to expand...

Examples please.

Also, on a personal note, I detest the original NIV as well...
Click to expand...

You detest the Word of God?! You are going against BB rules by saying that (at the very least)

WAY too much liberty taken in translation, at times.
Click to expand...

At times you disagree with a rendering. No big deal. We all object to the wording of passages in various versions occasionally.

The HCSB is one of my two preferred translations,
Click to expand...

You like the NIV wanna' be? Aside from the NET Bible the HCSB is closest in translation style to the 2011 NIV.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
glfredrick said:
The HCSB was produced to fill a gap between the very loose and virtually impossible to concord NIV
Click to expand...

Part of the reason for hatching the HCSB was to head-off the Americanized NIVI. The ESV came about in response to same perceived threat.

The old NIV is not "very loose" as you so inelegantly phrased it. It's a mediating translation between the more formal and the more functionally equivalent versions. I don't even think that the current NLTse could be considered very loose,though it is more dynamic than the 2011 NIV.

You might want to temper your remarks. Now the TEV,CEV,NCV &Co. all have less form-structured translation styles. They would be more suitable targets for your extreme language.

When a translator or team takes the plain words in the original text and modifies those words to be palatable to an audience that has no stomach for the true Word of God
Click to expand...

What you have said above is reprehensible. And it's a given since it is indeed reprehensible that it is utterly false.

It is not gender neutral,
Click to expand...

You're speaking here of the HCSB. and of course the 2011 NIV is also not geder neutral. But the HCSB uses about 12% more inclusive language than the old NIV.

it does not make light of God,
Click to expand...

You're engaging in seriously slanderous stuff.

It is equivalent where equivalent translation works and switches to dynamic where dynamic makes a passage understandable.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what you're talking about? What does your use of the word equivalence mean? Does it mean substituting a word or phrase that is in lieu of a more literal rendering? Then that means a functionally-equivalent wording is being employed. IOW,dynamic-equivalence is being used.

In that regard, it is unique among current translations.
Click to expand...

On the contrary,it's rather common place in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top