Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DaChaser1, Jan 25, 2012.
Are they still thinking to keep revising it regular basis?
Why shouldn't it be revised on a regular basis? Why shouldn't any translation be revised every few years? No version is perfect;they need to be corrected in spots. Martin Luther updated his five times in his life.
Revision is not a problem --it is a good thing.
Do they have a regular schedule for doing it?
Also, unless/until there has been new discoveries in the original languages texts. manuscripts, etc, or unless there is current/better understanding of the times/culture/languages, why even do it?
Here's what they promised in 1997:
What happened to that promise?
did the LORD change their minds, or was it due to cultural pressures, PC police running amuck?
No timetable but I guess that small and often is less controversial than big and seldom.
Doesn't this bring in though more "interpretation" of what the original authors meant/intended?
Would paul and Moses see need to have it so inclusive languaged for today?
Listen to Rippon. A lot of people don't understand that making a modification to a modern Bible is not simply to "change" what it says. It is to make sure that our modern language fits well with the age/generation the Bible is trying to target. If the Bible uses 16th century English; I don't see many people from 40 under reading it.
The publishers of the NIV will have to determine the cost of modifications vs. the risk and modern sales. It does become a business decision; but, we are a free enterprise country; you are either gaining in business or going down. Rarely, do businesses in our type of market sit still and continue to make the same percentage of profit year after year without changes.
Think of the change as an effort to stay up with modern English, not to change what the original manuscripts said.
Understand that, but what happened to the English language since 1984 so much to warrent revision, unless its JUST for the inclusive language renderings brought in, verty thing once oppossed?
Great God Almighty, what has changed since 1984?!
Is that a serious question? 28 years have passed and you're curious what might have changed?
I'm not personally stepping in for our Great God but the answer is once again given in the NIV's Preface.
How much credence should be given to the view of planned obsolesce, that every few years a revised version comes out so as to create a market for more sales. If I was a cold hearted accountant, I might like making changes to tickle the intolerant ears, simply to sell more $86.00 study bibles in leather bindings with gold edges.
Again, was this change really a necessity to allow one to better under the Bible, or else accomodating "feminist voices" in liberal Christianity demanding us to force Bible off "male bias?"
think my kids pretty much learned same exact English grammer that I did!
Language changes, or don't you agree? In the last 30 years change has come at a break neck speed, translations begin to sound outdated sooner, so they update them. I don't really see this a big deal, but I guess you do.
Sadly, that's the case today in almost everything, from Bibles to healthcare. "Cold hearted" accountants run the numbers, track sales trends, and confer with marketing executives on how to gain or recapture market share.
Computers and spreadsheets have made "what-if's" fast and easy to do. I know, I was a part of that in my former life. If we do abc how will it impact our annual sales figures? Instead of taking days to figure it out, results are now immediate.
Using the NIV as the example, go into a Christian bookstore. You don't see a shelf full of NIV with black or blue covers. Instead you see shelves of them, designed to appeal to every market niche that has the potential to generate a profit for the seller. Bibles have become fashion statements. Bibles have become a commodity treated in the same way dish detergent is being sold.
How often do we see a "new and improved" version of a dish detergent hit the market? Everytime the sales lag on a brand name detergent, there's a new gimmick being promoted to boost sales. Bigger bottle, more concentrated, "green" version, new fragrance.... the list can go on.
Society has been conditioned to always look for the new and improved. Throw out the "outdated" whether it's last years style of shoes or a Bible produced 5 years ago. Our church has an annual yard sale. The bulk of the donations are clothing items. Often in new condition with the sales tags still on them. Buy it, maybe wear it a few times, then give it away because it's out of style -- it's outdated -- it's obsolete.
How long has it been since there was a major discovery of ancient manuscripts, such as the cache of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Yet, the "new and improved" Bible versions IMPLY they are coming at a fairly rapid rate. If the English language -- as a whole -- were changing as fast as publishers imply, I wouldn't be able to talk to someone 50 years younger than myself.
Sure there are new words added to the English language at a fairly rapid pace. Google, twitter, Ipad, disc brakes, wide-screen, microwave, and Tupperware weren't in use 75 years ago. But, I don't find any of them or an archic equivalent mentioned in the Bible. Updated language is a marketing smoke screen to justify issuing a new Bible version every 5-10 years. Every 100 years, maybe, but not every time sales begin to slump as the market has been saturated with version y. Version z is going to roll off the presses so outdated y can be tossed in the trashcan.
This is the biggest problem that I have with mass merchandising Bibles. God's word is being treated as if it were Dawn dish detergent. Sales & marketing departments, plus accountants are the driving forces behind the steady stream of "new and improved" Bibles. Say what you will, but in my humble opinion all other considerations for new edition/version/translation take second place at the major publishing houses.
Think that ONLY reason that the Niv has been revised since 1984 was to to being "pressured" to keep it current with adding inclusive renderings, but still do not see why the real need to do that!
neither the NKJV/NASB has bothered to do that!
They did? Really?
Iglad someone saw my "pun" play on words for Grammar!