This should be interesting. I have not followed it closely, though I am aware of the basic story.
Wonder how long it will take to get into Logos? Knowing Zondervan, it won't be a free update; no reflection on Logos.
Jerry
I remember a base package crossgrade to just get the TNIV... I expect this one to be the same.
Looks like we shall be getting an anglicised version again via Hodder & Stoughton. [:D]
Does anyone know whether NIV 2011 will be based on TNIV or NIV Classic? In other words, will it retain the controversial changes in TNIV?
Peter
I suggest reading the materials here http://nivbibleupdate.com/
I just hope they do away with the stupid inconsistencies. For example, Mark 16:9-16 is inserted in the text, then there's a footnote saying this verses don't appear in the oldest manuscripts. But here's where the inconsistency comes, they skip Acts 8:37 and put it on a footnote and say this text has variants, etc. Why not just insert it on the text and ON the footnote just write "this text has variants." That's totally stupid in my opinion. It looks bad when you're reading Acts 8:36 and then it skips to 8:38. That happens a lot in other passages in the gospels also, which doesn't make the Bible look good. They should include the text and let us preachers do the explanations as to why some text have variants or some are not included in the oldest manuscripts, etc. But to include some and leave some out for the same reasons, that's just not being consistent. That's why several people have condemned the NIV and labeled it as the "Need Improvement Version" when in reality is not that bad of a translation. Hopefully the picky and bias people at Zondervan will lighten up a little and start thinking more in terms of helping people understand the Word and not confusing them because they care more about money and their own business.
Thanks for posting the link, Jerry.
When available in Logos, this will be an important update (as will the OT interlinear in NIV)
And where will we find a list of all the differences between the old and new versions?
[That is: what changed?]
[With out that list we will need to re engineer all of the Bible studies that use the NIV to see if we need to change to a different verse]
This should be interesting. I have not followed it closely, though I am aware of the basic story. Wonder how long it will take to get into Logos? Knowing Zondervan, it won't be a free update; no reflection on Logos. Jerry
The TNIV and NIrV were first released together by Logos as a $20 upgrade and then later Logos updated their base packages to include both of them for free but it took about a year for that to happen.
Tom
Does anyone know whether NIV 2011 will be based on TNIV or NIV Classic? In other words, will it retain the controversial changes in TNIV? Peter
I don't know. I find great humor in the fact they even admit they published a translation full of errors. If you dig up all the reviews and advertising for any of the modern versions they all claim to be the latest & greatest in accuracy. But before the chief editor is passed on to his reward, they are correcting all his oversights.
Well it least it sells a lot of books.
The inclusion of the NiV should be something people should have to buy outside of a package rather than include it.
Further, I wish that Logos offered the "conservative (the Bible is the inerrant Word of God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob period), free grace, dispensational, premillenial" package with all the trimmings. I would pay top dollar for such a package and simply add others as needed.
Or, how about a "create your own package" option.
Seems reasonable.
I don't know. I find great humor in the fact they even admit they published a translation full of errors. If you dig up all the reviews and advertising for any of the modern versions they all claim to be the latest & greatest in accuracy. But before the chief editor is passed on to his reward, they are correcting all his oversights. Well it least it sells a lot of books.
I don't think they've admitted any such thing. Language changes and scholarship advances. We will always need updated translations. If one translation would have sufficed, we would all be using the Septuagint today.
As for the TNIV, it failed as a combination of its handlers who failed to support it completely (since the NIV was a huge cash cow) along with a smear campaign by those who didn't approve of the translation choices in the TNIV. The translation itself was actually pretty good and even a bit more conservative in its choices than a lot of translations currently on the market.
