2011 NIV Announced

This will be the fourth version of the NIV since 1978. Is the English language changing that much to justify 3 revisions in a little over 30 years? Or is this more about making money? The TNIV wasn’t selling well, so it is being shelved to come up with another revision that will. I read a message by James Boice where he mentioned the disproportionate amount of resources we are spending on English translations versus getting translation done and Bibles printed in other languages that still lack a good Bible. This 4th NIV is evidence of that.

I am not a fan of the NIV. This is not presented in support of the NIV. But…

Was not the “Authorized Version” revised at least twice before 1640?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

As I said, not a fan of the NIV, but, to be fair, is it not common to update and refine the work when printing translations?

It is not unusual in publishing for there to be a couple of editions of a book- usually they correct typos, grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors, not the content itself. I think the distinction is important to note, because a revision would involve altering the text, while an edition refers to form (paperback, hardback) or to a specific printing run.

I’m not KJVO but I don’t think there is any similarity between the revisions of the KJV and the NIV. For one thing, the NIV had use of computers to check matters like typos, spelling and consistent translation of words. To have 3 revisions in 33 years is a little much. Of course, they can do it if they want. The question I raised was whether money was the driving factor behind this. They went for gender inclusive langauge, it didn’t sell, now they are going to make some changes to have a bible that sells. Wouldn’t the money required to revise the NIV be put to better use getting bibles to those who have none? At least Biblica said that this time they are going to get it right-hopefully.

I don’t know if money is behind this. It seems a little snarky to be guessing at motives here. Perhaps the CBT feels that the NIV can be significantly improved - something most fundies I know would probably agree with. There have also been around thirty years of commentaries, most of the best of which have been based upon the NIV text, so that when commentators disagree on the translation in a particular passage they often will state their reasons for translating the passage differently. The TNIV made several helpful corrections reflecting the commentaries, but the whole gender inclusive thing was handled poorly (and perhaps misguided) and people just couldn’t get over that issue.

[Jonathan Charles] For one thing, the NIV had use of computers to check matters like typos, spelling and consistent translation of words. To have 3 revisions in 33 years is a little much.

Computers are a big help in preparing material for publication, but they do not eliminate the human judgment. As long as there is human judgment, there will be human errors.