Um, the NASB updated in 1995 and the NKJV was "outdated" when it came out, but that is what they where going for when they started
-
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!
How long before the Niv gets revised again do you think?
- Thread starter DaChaser1
- Start date
Um, the NASB updated in 1995 and the NKJV was "outdated" when it came out, but that is what they where going for when they started
With all due respect, like many others in this section, you show little understanding of the Bible translation project.
Perhaps you need to question yourself about the Bible translation you use.
use primary texts in English the NASB/ESV/NKJV
point still remains as to WHY the NIV translators moved off their prior stated belief as reagrds revising the version to include more inclusive renderings?
What happened to change their minds?
why haven't the NASB and NKJV jumped aboard that "translation express?"
Because they are behind the times. Both are badly in need of revision. The NRSV would be a better choice for folks who favor NASB and NKJV.
why would we want to go back to a less accurate rendering o fthe original texts though?
Again, what happened to have the Niv translators move off their stated intent to NOT revise the Niv based upon inclusive renderings?
Do we Evangelical who have problems with that philosophy behind the revision to include inclusive renderings much more have NO basis for our discomfort with it?
When James Dobson and his cronies at World Mag got everyone in a tizzy, the NIV folks capitulated to their unreasonable demands of not changing anything. They finally came to realize that they had made a mistake. They changed their mind because they came to understand that agreeing not to change the NIV 1984 was a stupid thing to agree to and violated the intent of the NIV started in the 70's.
For those complaining they did it to make money please realize that had there not been the wild hysteria in the first place we wouldn't have had three editions being published in less then ten years.
For those complaining they did it to make money please realize that had there not been the wild hysteria in the first place we wouldn't have had three editions being published in less then ten years.
again, whydo the revising IF the original version was just fine?
How did those revisions make it "better/more accurate?"
Don't think tht it was JUST James Dobson, MANY Evangelicals had reservations on both 2005 TNIV and the 2011 NIv versions!
The NIV was clearly in need of a revision, though we may disagree with some of the decisions here and there.
The NASB (95), keep in mind, is more gender-sensitive than the NASU (77).
I know very little about the NJKV.
If you understand how the biblical languages work as far as gender is concern, you will not be so critical of translations like the NIV11 and NLT and so on.
I understand what you are saying here, just don't really see why the need to so so MANY new inclusive renderings in the Niv for now?
And don't see why IF versions like the NASB has chosen to NOT do so many inclusive language revisions into their translation, they would be seen "inferior" to the Niv 2011?
A matter of perspective, my friend.
We both would agree that either the NASB or the 2011 Niv would be suitable for bible study, justuse the one that 'works' for you, right?
That's how I see it too, but one is going to be a bumpier ride.
Come on! the new NIV not that bad!