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!
If it wasn't for the sinful actions of prominent, professing, Christians, the TNIV would be a be popular translation currently.
I had sent in suggestions (as many others also) to the TNIV translating team almost two years ago. I hope they use those suggestions on the 2011 NIV. I have a feeling it's going to look a lot more like the TNIV than the NIV. They certainly don't need to appease Grudem and Dobson.
Here's my prediction: this 'new' NIV will also be a marketing disaster. Because once a version has remained unchanged for over a decade enough of its readership has become entrenched in the precise wording of that version so that it cannot be radically changed in one phase (edition) with favorable reaction.
I think it was a rather significant change; enough of a change that it got a new name.The TNIV didn't radically alter the NIV. ...
The original Living Bible (LB) was a true paraphrase. The New Living Translation (NLT) ultimately became a whole new project with a new name with almost no significant relationship with the LB. And per my point, the second edition of the NLT occurred within the acceptable 10 year period. Most of the public does realize that updates have even been made when the name stays the same; for example, the 1978 NIV was revised just 6 years later and the NASB was modified 4 times during the 1970s.... Remember the old Living Bible? It was completely revamped and released in 1996 with a warm welcome. The 1996 NLT was changed radically with the publication of the NLTse. The public received in with open arms. ...
The KJV was supposed to be a revision of the Bishop's Bible, but it also became really a whole new translation. And per my point, it was not immediately well received. But I didn't mean that these updates won't eventually become accepted either. And look at the resistance the NKJV received from some.... The KJV was a reworking of Tyndale, Bishop's Bible and the Geneva primarily and I think it's still around. ...
I used a 1977 NASB for many years (the only alternative to the KJV that I owned). I acquired a 1995 NASB over a year ago. I have not examined every 'nut and bolt' but the revision does not mostly seem that significant. In the areas that are significant (dropping "thy" and "thou") I have heard negative comments from loyal readers.... The NASB was updated in 1995 after a long period of no change. ...
I think it was a rather significant change; enough of a change that it got a new name.
And per my point, the second edition of the NLT occurred within the acceptable 10 year period.
But I didn't mean that these updates won't eventually become accepted either.
The NIV faces a unique challenge; it has been widely popular and around for a while, unlike most of the others. The NASB was probably the most similar situation.
I'm not really interested in having a dispute with you. However, while 6% is a small number, it doesn't really tell the whole story. If the only edit in a sixteen word sentence was the removal of the single word (like "not") it could represent a major change in meaning.Only 6% of the New Testament was changed. That's minor, not major. ...
Yes, my choice of 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. But the NLT fits my rule.... "The acceptable 10 year period"? That's according to your view. I don't think that's a hard and fast rule of thumb. After a period one decade you think new editions/revisions would be unacceptable to the public? Where is your evidence? ...
It was just a prediction. I don't believe I can prove a "possibility".... I still don't understand your contention that the 2011 NIV will be a marketing disaster. Where's your proof of that being a possibility?
However, while 6% is a small number, it doesn't really tell the whole story. If the only edit in a sixteen word sentence was the removal of the single word (like "not") it could represent a major change in meaning.
Yes, my choice of 10 years is somewhat arbitrary.
It was just a prediction. I don't believe I can prove a "possibility".
I think they will probably do what they're saying - they'll reach out to some who have been disenfranchised by the TNIV and get some input for the NIV '11.
Now, whether those folks will have a prominent voice in the new translation or not remains to be seen.
Christianity Today, 2002
"...eight anti-NIVI men said in a press release Friday. . . . The signers are Dobson, Tim Bayly (who in 1997 was the executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), . . . The men have also launched a Web site to counter the TNIV: KeptTheFaith.org. The Web site (operated by Bayly's Church of the Good Shepherd). . . "
I don't understand why it is "evil" to make money? So they make a few bucks, so they copyright, so what! It's there right protect their work and make a few bucks, nothing in the Bible that says that Bible scholars are supposed to be poor.
That is if I accept your premise that bible translation is all about money making, which I don't
I still say so what. Ford is out to make money, but if they didn't deliver a truck that I wanted or felt was an improvement on the previous "version" for a price I would be willing to pay, I wouldn't buy it. The TNIV was/is a vast improvement over the NIV. That Zondervan will make money off it is of little concern. If they over charge for their product or deliver a product that I don't want, I won't buy it. Also, Zondervan doesn't control the text, the CBT does, Zondervan controls the marketing, of which they did a terrible job on the TNIV. It is the CBT that decides what the text of the translation says.