Best-selling Bible to undergo revision (NIV - New International Version)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 9/1/09 | Eric Gorski - ap

[NormsRevenge]

The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text.

The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.

"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand," said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.

But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.

[carton253]

Did they have copyright laws back in King James’ days?

[xjcsa]

Wrong, NIV is a big seller, but not the choice of conservative Bible believers. It distorts God's word and changes the doctrine. Also known as Satan's translation.

Haha wow...ok then...

[Lucas McCain]

My understanding is that the NIV was translated directly from the Dead Sea scrolls.

I suggest you do a little research.

[ShadowAce]

While I'm making this decision, can you answer a question or two?

Matthew 5:44--How do you know the extended version is the correct one?

Matthew 17:21 -- How do you know that was in the original and not added to the text in it's Latin or German translation?

etc...basically the same question throughout.

I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I have not read the original. However, some scholars that I know, do prefer the NIV due to it being the closest translation to the original texts. That's their claim.

[xjcsa]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.

Simplistic and just plain silly. The King James translation came first, but the NIV is translated from earlier manuscripts. From a textual perspective, the NIV is "earlier."

[ziravan]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.

Why would you make that interpretation? The NIV benefits from hundreds of years of discovery of new texts by which to make comparisons. There are some rare translations in the NIV that I would not agree with that particular translation, but more so with the KJV.

The KJV was translated with very limited available resources while the NIV used hundreds of available texts and comparisons. As with any translation, a serious student of the Bible has an obligation to look at discussions and debates on controversial areas of translations to divine for themselves the original intent of the origin language. That would be true and is ESPECIALLY true with the KJV, as well.

I believe - based on extensive personal comparisons - that the NIV is a more clear and more accurate translation than the KJV, and, I believe that the intent behind its creation was less political.

I have my concerns with any "new" translation, but the NIV, including its problems, is well vetted. A quick look at the internet would yield much debate on the subject, for anybody interested. I would hope that any new NIV translation holds firm to the intent to provide an accurate translation of the Bible.

Timothy.

[taxcontrol]

I thought conservatives evangelicals were more NKJV. And just plain old fashioned conservatives were KJV. Then there are the orthodox conservatives who start with the KJV and then supplement with Strong’s Greek and Hebrew translations.

[xjcsa]

There are many KJV vs NIV comparisons online, just look at them and see the scriptures that are completely left out along with many changes to doctrine.

This begs the question by assuming that the KJV translation is correct and the NIV is incorrect. Did the thought even occur to you that the NIV may be correct and the KJV may be the one "changing doctrine"?

[horse_doc]

You shouldn’t use the NIV because it is corrupt.

Absolute rubbish. The KJV is a word-for-word translation, which sounds swell, but in reality, word-for-word translations distort an awful lot of stuff.

The NIV translates more conceptually, with more insight into what phrases mean in context. It is simply a more accurate way of translating things.

And yes, I do know enough Hebrew and Greek to make up my own mind. You can get the Truth from either translation, but to dote on word-for-word translations as being the gold standard, ignores how language works.

[ShadowAce]

ping

[what's up]

The King James version is a translation of a translation. they used the Latin Vulgate (see: Roman Catholic translations) and put them into (then) contemporary 16th century terminology. The NIV is a translation from extant Hebrew, Greek, and other prime sources, rather than a third-party translation

Thanks...that about sums it up.

I'd rather read a translation that used the more original and reliable texts.

[JamesA]

I will Keep my KING JAMES thank you very much.

[Arguendo]

So you think the KJV is really a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek than more modern translations? What basis do you have for this claim?

[Arguendo]

You people are crazy.

[xjcsa]

Thank you for the concrete examples. While I have been using the NIV quite a bit, I will be re-thinking my choice based on this post.

...sigh...again, what if the NIV is correct, as seems most likely if you pay any attention at all to the translation process? What if the KJV was wrong on these points? The NIV didn't "change" the Bible, because the KJV is ***NOT*** the "original." The originals are in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and I never see "KJV only" advocates making any arguments from the original language. They only make surface-level arguments based on differences with their "preferred" translation and rely on the listener to regard the KJV as somehow authoritative.

[Brookhaven]

Did they have copyright laws back in King James’ days?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As I recall (memory not exact here) there opening page of the original printing had a statement something to the effect of “May not be reprocduced without the written permission of the King”. I don’t remember the literal statement, but it was a clear statement that the translation was the property of the king.

Personally, I would love to see a solid public domain modern English translation come about.

Then again, I have to agree that a “workman is worth his wages.” If someone goes to the effort to translate the Bible, they do have a right to copyright the translation.

[ShadowAce]

Yes. Please see my post #44.

[Arguendo]

Verse 2 refers to two Old Testament passages (hence, "prophets"); Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.

In the original Greek?

[cornelis]

In this dating argument, they think that older is more original. However, the newer manuscript may have been copied by better and fewer scribes and plausibly be closer to the original than the older.

[Buck W.]

Thanks for the response.

“Why ask that of someone who is NOT a Catholic Christian?”

Because the answers can be quite revealing...