End of TNIV?

Rippon,

A blogging friend of mine predicts that the TNIV will find a new body in this 2011 NIV.

I think I believe him to some extent. Of course not all of the TNIV as we both know it. :thumbs:

 

I agree.. exaggerating points that are not true is the same as lying.. .
And there was so much exaggerating concerning the TNIV that many Christians are now guilty of lying on this fine translation...

 

Isn't this the bunch that not long ago pledged: "The best-selling NIV will continue to be published in its current form without change"?

 

I think in the new conference they all but admitted that it was a mistake to continue to publish the NIV while trying to also publish the TNIV. They won't do that again. The NIV 1984 is going away with the TNIV when the NIV 2011 comes out. At least that is my understanding.

 

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.

 

The TNIV didn't radically alter the NIV. The 2011 will not be a radical departure either. Although it will be more of a TNIV update than than a revision of the 1984 NIV.

Lots of versions are updated and readership is affected. 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 a reworking of Tyndale, Bishop's Bible and the Geneva primarily and I think it's still around.

The NASB was updated in 1995 after a long period of no change.

I could go on and on with examples.

Don't be such a pessimist Franklin.

 

I think it was a rather significant change; enough of a change that it got a new name.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

Only 6% of the New Testament was changed. That's minor, not major.

For review there was the 1996 NLT and the radically revised 2004 NLTse. That's a span of eight years. "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?

I agree.

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?

 

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.

Yes, my choice of 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. But the NLT fits my rule.

It was just a prediction. I don't believe I can prove a "possibility".

 

You sound like a KJO'er who claims that modern versions such as the NIV has removed verses from the Bible.

I'll say it again, 6% of a change is minor. The ESV is essentially the RSV with about a 6% change.

Your example of the 16 word sentence is a little far-fetched. Removing an important word such as "not" is NOT on the agenda of the 2011 NIV translation team.

I agree.

That's right. Just pray for the guidance of the 2011 NIV translation team that they will do a God-honoring job.

 

Preliminary indications are that Biblica and Zondervan are going to do this right this time. So I don't think the TNIV will just reappear as the NIV in '11. 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.

Or I could be wrong. That's always a possibility!

 

I don't think the opponents of the TNIV felt disenfranchised in the least. For starters, they weren't fans of the NIV in the first place, much less the TNIV.

Fans of the TNIV have felt disenfranchised because of all the ridiculous attacks upon this version. So much bad-mouthing, especially by prominent Christians (and Christian mags)who should have known better. Boycotts haven't exactly helped the sense of disenfranchisement either.

I don't want those kinds of voices within hearing distance of the translation team.

 

Here's the best take I've read anywhere on the TNIV. Tim Bayly hits the nail on the head. "Follow the money..."

Before everyone forgets about it, here are a couple thoughts about the announcement by Zondervan and Biblica that they're scrapping their TNIV product.

I've spent my life inside the world of Christian publishing, particularly the Bible publishing world. And the thing everyone must understand is that it's an exceedingly rare Bible translator or publisher who is unaware of the money that can be made or lost on Bible sales. And usually made--not lost. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and the necessity of keeping an eye on the mammon is as applicable to men like Don Carson who have been paid to translate gender-neutered Bibles as it is to the women like Moe Girkins who have been paid to head up gender-neutered Bible publishing corporations like Zondervan.

So, for instance, we all know Zondervan has canned their TNIV product because its sales have been pitiful. Looking more deeply into the matter, we find...

the TNIV lost the battle with Tyndale House Publishers' New Living Translation--the other sex-neutered Bible marketed to the Emerging Evangelical church. The NLT outsold the TNIV twenty-to-one.
You say you don't want to think of Bible publishing this way, but would prefer to discuss this latest news in higher and more noble terms? There are many men who have given their lives to Bible paraphrase and translation and publishing who were motivated by the sincere desire to spread the Word of God for the salvation of mankind.

Rarely are motives that simple, though. Consider the Bible Itself.
Do we wish Galatians didn't record the Apostle Peter's multiple cowardly deceptions? Or the Apostle Paul's public confrontation of one of Peter's deceptions in front of the church of Galatia? Lot's wife and daughters? Judas pinching money from the common purse? Ananias and Sapphira? Our Lord's Letters to the Seven Churches?

Christians need accountability, so read on.
Rather than treating the marketing press releases of Zondervan and Biblica (and the ensuing revival of discussions of translation philosophies) as matters above our pay grade, it would be good for all of us to yawn as we think to ourselves, "Well, looks like Zondervan's taken it on the chin with the TNIV."
That's it. End of story. Finis.

Except two small additions. First, that the press releases make it clear that Ms. GIrkins is uncomfortable with being the CEO of a corporation that's viewed as schismatic and divisive by large swaths of the Emergent Evangelical Chuch. Generally, relational peace matters more to women than to men, and since Ms. Girkins has come onto the scene at Zondervan, she's been working hard to put this nastiness behind her. So no, I don't think it's all about money. Some of it is about avoiding being viewed as divisive, and that's commendable as far as it goes. (I've said as much to Ms. Gerkins personally, by letter.)

Second, Zondervan and Biblica are going to try again, with another product they hope will make them piles of money--both for Zondervan's stockholders and Biblica's coffers (out of which Doug Moo, Gordon Fee, and other members of the Committee on Bible Translation are paid good money for their services).

Always keep in mind that back in 1997 when the gender-neutered Bible controversy broke, nationally, through Susan Olasky's cover story in World, the only division of Zondervan that was profitable that year was its Bible division. Which leads me to repeat something I heard from reliable sources back then.

In response to the international stink World brought to Zondervan that year which poisoned its reputation and alienated many customers within its primary market segment, Zondervan's CEO heard from Rupert Murdock.
You ask "Well, what did Rupert Murdock have to say, and what business was it of Rupert Murdock, anyway?"

I have no firsthand knowledge of what Mr. Murdock said, but I'm guessing the conversation wasn't happiness and bonhomie. After all, Zondervan's best and brightest had shot the goose that laid the golden egg--the golden egg that kept Zondervan profitable that year, remember.

And what business was it of Rupert Murdock, anyway?

Years ago, in exchange for boatloads of money, the ownership of the world's largest Bible publisher passed from Christian to secular hands. Since then, Doug Moo has been paid by the International Bible Society (recently renamed Biblica), which in turn has been paid by Zondervan, which in turn has been paid by HarperRowCollins Publishing, which in turn has been paid by NewsCorp, which in turn has been run by Rupert Murdock.

Here's the blurb Zondervan's web site puts at the bottom of products pages:

Zondervan, a HarperCollins company, is a world leader in Christian communications and the leading Christian publishing brand. For more than 75 years, Zondervan has delivered transformational Christian experiences through general and academic resources by influential leaders and emerging voices, and been honored with more Christian Book Awards than any other publisher. Headquartered in Grand Rapids, Mich., with offices in San Diego and Miami, Zondervan conducts events and publishes its bestselling Bibles, books, audio, video, curriculum, software, and digital products through its Zondervan, eZondervan, Zonderkidz, Youth Specialties, Editorial Vida, and National Pastors Convention brands. Zondervan resources are sold worldwide through retail stores, online, and by Zondervan ChurchSource, and are translated into nearly 200 languages in more than 60 countries. Visit Zondervan on the Internet at www.zondervan.com (mobile site: zvan.mobi).


If you want to read current Evangelical church history and start to see some minimal similarity to the sin and failure we see recorded concerning other Christians all across church history--especially in the New Testament--only one thing is necessary: follow the money.

Then check on the perqs and hotels and meals and fees and commissions and copyrights and royalties and salaries of the publishers and their authors and scholars, and you'll never be able to see what's chic and cool and hip again without also seeing the Temple as Jesus trucked on through with a whip and the fury of zeal for His Father's glory.

Now, we can all go back to our favorite Christian blog or online ministry with all their ads and conferences and books and cruises and money... Buy a sermon or book from your favorite Reformed pastor. Do it today. Give him his royalties and make him happy.

Tim Bayly

 

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

 

Lux, you said:"Here's the best take I've read anywhere on the TNIV." Really? Does Tim Bayly's screed impress you that much? It wasn't very substantial. In addition, he's quite small-minded.

"The NLT -- the other sex-neutered Bible marketed to the Emerging Evangelical Church."

The above is nonsensical garbage.

"... men like Don Carson who have been paid to translate gender-neutered Bibles... gender-neutered Bible Corporations like Zondervan."

What kind stuff is that? Don't you respect the biblical scholarship of D.A. Carson? He contributed to the NLTse translation of the book of Acts along with two other men.

I have to go now. But I'll be back for more on this topic.

 

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). . . "

 

Just for the record. Simply quoting Tim Bayly does not necessarily mean I endorse everything about his life and ministry. I still say that his article points to some serious issues on the whole TNIV matter.

 

"A few bucks"???? Are you kidding? This is a multi-million dollar industry.

I surely don't care if they copyright their material. As you say, "It's there (sic) right to protect their work and make a few bucks..."

And make no mistake about it. One of (not exclusively, but one of) the MAJOR driving influences of Bible translation (for the English speaking world) is "all about money".

 

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.

 

If the principles of building a Ford truck and translating the Word of God are somehow even comparable in your mind, then I really can't think of anything to say to you.

Bible publishers PRIMARY focus ought to be on the publishing of God's Word, with the profit side a secondary issue. Secular business has its PRIMARY focus on making money. The gullible Christian public just keeps the wheels rolling. What a sham and what a shame!