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.
Douglas -
I agree with your ideas of just keeping in the text with some footnotes. However, Zondervan has nothing to do with the translation. They just hold the rights in certain countries to market and sell it.
Thanks Jerry,
I think it would be better. A lot of people get confused with the missing verses and they start asking questions that they're not ready to get the answer to them. It really bothers me when I'm evangelizing someone and they have the NIV and the study is going well until you get to a verse and they say, "wow, why did it skip a verse?" That right there totally ruins the study in many cases because then people start wondering if what you have is the real "Bible." Anyway, hopefully the update will leave all the text and just keep the footnotes at the bottom.
Blessings!
Douglas
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]
A lot of people get confused with the missing verses and they start asking questions
I remember having a textual transmission and criticism "class", impromptu, with a couple of 5th and 6th graders during "break time" at camp. They were totally into it. Yeah, those kinds of questions do unsettle people. But I don't think the admission of all or the exclusion of some frees us from needing to deal with it. Besides, which variants do you keep? Are there any you are pretty certain were not original? If there are, why would you keep them in the main part of the text? Verse numbers and all are just a late addition, anyway. So, keeping "verse X" out sounds a lot worse than just removing an added section (with no verse number)--but it is the same thing. We need to teach and preach these things with care, to be sure. But adding/deleting is not a simple enterprise.
I think Douglas makes a good point: The original NIV seems to be inconsistent. Sometimes they take out the verse or verses in question and notate it as a footnote. Other times, they leave it in with a note saying that the earliest manuscripts do not contain that verse or verses.
I am sure there is a good explanation for it, but I would rather see it one way or the other. For instance, the longer ending of Mark is one of the most disputed passages in the whole Bible, but they left it in.
As far as verse numbering and even skipping some, that does not really bother me since chapter and verse breaks are not part of the Word. I would just rather them be consistent.
This all coming from someone that has used the NIV for over 20 years. For public preaching and teaching, I use the NLT though, and recommend it to anyone new to the Bible. It seems to be a bit overlooked and underrated. But I digress...
Dan - I appreciate what you are saying here too. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than "take 'em all out or leave 'em all in" approach.
As an aside, when I look at disputed passages or verses, I cannot think of one that has had an impact on theology. In other words, God has preserved His Word at its core. Pretty cool.
I am sure there is a good explanation for it
There is a book "The Accuracy of the Niv" published by Baker (now out of print), that was written by Dr. Kenneth Barker, and it goes verse by verse through these decisions.
Douglas, as others have noted, translating the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts to English (or any other Language) is not an easy task. The first question that the translators have to ask is what text are they going to use. For an example, does a translator use NA27, LXX, MT? What we have in the NIV, NRSV, or any other translation is what the translators believe is their best English (or some other language) translation based on the rules they used (literal, dynamic equivalent, simplified English, etc...).
You mentioned the long ending to Mark's Gospel in your post. Do you know that we actually have four endings to Mark's Gospel? What the NIV gives us is their opinion, based on their scholarship, of what ending Mark should have. If you pick up a NRSV study Bible, it will actually have two endings for Mark, the "short ending" and the "long ending."
The other textual issue that you state is Acts 8:37. As far as I know, no new translations have this verse because everyone agrees that this verse was added at a later time.
We all need to be aware how the early church passed down the text to the next generation. Thus, I would recommend A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible and A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for anyone who has questions concerning text critical issues.
Tom & Douglas, please consider the following [A real eye opener]. Here's a little information on Acts 8:37 which in my opinion should be included along with others that have been excluded from the Bible:
Here's a little information on Acts 8:37
The verse did not appear until about 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus.
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
Geovanni, I appreciate the info you have provided. However, I don't think it is helpful on this site (even if you are just quoting someone's work) to refer to translations as "counterfeit" or that the NKJV is (more or less) the center of the devil's playground. Other places are better for such discussions. I understand this is an important issue, and emotions can run high. Please feel free to discuss this among your friends or those you are in personal contact with, but just not on this forum. Thanks [:)]
Hello Giovanni,
It is safe to say that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Because you make some claims in this post and other people will be reading these posts, I am going state one basic concepts that I think are important when it comes to text critical issues and some Logos resources that will help a person discover more about text critical issues.
“Oldest and Best”
I state, along with my colleges that I hang around, that manuscripts need to be weighed, not counted. There are two main reason why I state this. The first comes from the fact once an error was introduced into the text, the error was repeated in the following copies of the text. Therefore, the farther away we get from the original autographs, the more errors there are within the text. The second reason why I state that manuscripts need to be weighed, not counted, comes from how some of the manuscripts were copied. There where two main ways that monasteries. The first is that a monk made one copy from the manuscript that he had. The second way monasteries made copies of the text is that one monk would read the text, and several monks would then write down what they heard. Not only did this increase the number of manuscripts the monastery could produce and thus increase their income, it also increased the number of errors that were introduced into the text. It was true back then as it is today, when you increase quantity of a product being produced, you also decrease its quality. Therefore, I state, along with my colleges that I hang around, that manuscripts need to be weighed, not counted. Or paraphrasing what you said, older is better.
This verse is in the Old Latin Vulgate of 90-150 A.D. which was a direct translation from the original autographs.
Not only have I not heard of this claim before, I only found one site on the internet that supports this claim, and I believe that it is the same site that you copied from and pasted into the forum (http://www.scionofzion.com/acts_8_37.htm).
Here is some history on the Vulgate. In 383 C.E., Pope Damasus consulted Jerome about certain points of Scriptural criticism. In the same year, he urged him to revise the current Latin version [Old Latin Vulgate] using the Greek original. This is what Jerome said to Pope Damasus in his introduction to the Gospels, "It is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies." (A select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, Volume 6 pg 488 http://books.google.com/books/download/A_select_library_of_Nicene_and_post_Nice.pdf?id=NQUNAAAAIAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1bH3MxTFDlWtkPxQc1TSkyus4olw).
Here are some Logos resources that I know have some information concerning text critical issues:
A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the BibleA Textual Commentary on the Greek New TestamentAnchor Yale Bible DictionaryIntroducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological SurveyAn Introduction to the New Testament
I, for one, wish they'd relegate Mark 16:9-16 to the footnotes and let the Gospel end where the Gospel writer originally ended it. No major translation committee has had the nerve to do that yet, though.
It's clearly established and affirmed by scholars across the theological spectrum that these verses aren't in the original.
To me the text on top is for the biblical text. The footnotes are for anything else.
I preached from this passage once years ago, but thinking better of it now, I'd never do it again.
I, for one, wish they'd relegate Mark 16:9-16 to the footnotes and let the Gospel end where the Gospel writer originally ended it. No major translation committee has had the nerve to do that yet, though. It's clearly established and affirmed by scholars across the theological spectrum that these verses aren't in the original.
I agree with you 100%, but I do know some very very very very good scholars who would disagree with you. For an example, I have suggested The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel by N Clayton Croy should be added to Logos' library.
We have to be honest, It doesn't matter what option that a translation team selects, people are going to be upset with their decision. This is why I like the option that the NRSV took; they gave the reader two of the most likely endings of Mark's Gospel. It tells the reader that we truly do not know how the original text ended.
Using Logos 4
I found 25 commentaries that implied that dropping 9-20 was or might be the thing to do
But I also found 18 that kept them with no comments on any problems. [This study has taken all day]
Personally I THINK that the last page was lost and that someone that had read the lost page was the person that added it back but was doing it from memory. [imho] [And with no proof]
[I am waiting for 2032 when a very early Christian Library will be found near the Dead Sea and then watching all the Textual Criticism text books get “revised”] [The cries of forgery will last until 9999]
Personally, whether Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition or not I don't see it being inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures. It matches perfectly what the rest of Scriptures teach. I like the following article I found on it.
The Assault upon Mark 16:16BY WAYNE JACKSON5ShareA group of disgruntled defectors from the faith has initiated a subversive electronic magazine mislabeled, Grace Centered Magazine. The names associated with this nefarious effort read like a “Who’s Who” of apostates within the “change agent” movement.
Recently, a writer, who chose to remain anonymous (cf. Gal. 2:4 — “false brothers secretly brought in,” ESV), published an article in GCM titled, “Are Unbaptized Believers Lost?” The first line of the piece revealed the contemptuous disposition of its clandestine author: “Can salvation be found anywhere other than the bottom of a baptistery?” The article then proceeds to regurgitate numerous sectarian quibbles against the essentiality of immersion for the remission of sins.
It is not our intention to review this elementary effort in a comprehensive fashion. We do want to note this, however. In a footnote at the end of the treatise, the mystery writer attempts to argue the notion that Mark 16:16 does not establish the necessity of baptism as a requirement leading to salvation.
Inasmuch as we published an article relating to Mark 16:16 in the print version of theChristian Courier, some two years ago (January, 2001), we have decided to reproduce that discussion here (with minor editorial adjustments). It is longer than we normally desire our Penpoints articles to be, but we felt the importance of the issue outweighed the length factor. Please study this presentation carefully.
It is a fundamental fact of Bible interpretation that those passages that are most crucial to one’s salvation are the easiest to understand. That is why Mark’s account of the “great commission” is so incredibly simple. One of the great mysteries of modern “Christendom” is why certain clergymen have so obscured this wonderful text:
“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who disbelieves shall be condemned” (16:16).
Because Mark 16:9-20 is missing from two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, and from some of the early versions, and because of certain perceived problems in the continuity between 16:9ff and the preceding context, most textual critics today question the genuineness of this section. That is, they dispute that it was a part of Mark’s originalGospel (see Robertson, Metzger, etc.). It must be noted though, that some of these men concede that this disputed segment of the final chapter of Mark nonetheless reflects the inspired teaching of Jesus (Grassmick, 194). On the other hand, the genuineness of the text has been defended ably by some very respectable scholars (e.g., Scrivener, Burgon, McGarvey, Lenski.)
W.R. Farmer has argued that the evidence indicates that Mark was the author of 16:9-20, but that he likely penned it before the composition of the Gospel record. He feels that the disputed text was added to the end of the Gospel manuscript at a later time.
We will not consume space discussing this issue here, but we cannot resist pointing out that most of the commentators who repudiate the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel, nonetheless feel compelled to write their comments on the book all the way through verse 20!
Some just cannot figure out what to do with the text. In his debate with N.B. Hardeman (1938), Baptist protagonist Ben Bogard rejected the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, and yet, in his encounter with Aimee McPherson (1934 — founder of the Foursquare Church), he appealed to it mightily!
In Mark 16:16, two conditions of the divine plan of redemption are mentioned — belief and baptism. These are preliminary to the reception of salvation. Surely even the most amateur student can see that these items are but representative of the fuller complement of sacred requirements. There is, for example, no reference to repentance, though this change of disposition — which results in a reformation of life — clearly is requisite for redemption (Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 17:30). Nor is the “good confession” included (cf. 1 Tim. 6:13), though it is combined with belief elsewhere (Rom. 10:9-10). It is common in the New Testament for a writer to emphasize occasionally certain conditions relating to salvation, without citing the entire catalog of requirements (cf. Jn. 3:16; Acts 17:30; 1 Pet. 3:21). How wonderful it would be if those who argue for “salvation by faith alone” could learn this simple principle.
It is quite important that the New Testament student recognize the order in which the divine conditions are listed in Mark 16:16 — the reason being, the biblical sequence is totally at variance with certain sectarian theories. For example:
Each of these theories is hopelessly at odds with the facts. Any attempt to scramble the listed conditions, results only in manifold confusion. The Bible does not say: “He who has been saved, eventually will believe, and may be baptized.” It does not state that “he who believes is saved, and may be baptized.” It does affirm that, “he who believes, and is baptized *shall be saved.”* That is the sacred order. The elements of the passage may not, with impunity, be rearranged.
In the grammar of the Greek New Testament, there are rules by which the order of events sometimes may be determined. For example, both “believeth” and “is baptized” in the Greek Testament are what grammarians call “aorist tense participles.” (A participle is a word that has the characteristics of both an adjective and a verb.) The aorist tense has to do with a specific kind of action. Though there are exceptions, the aorist participle “ordinarily” expresses action that occurs prior to that of the leading verb in a sentence (Dana, 230).
In Mark 16:16, the leading verb is “shall be saved.” The full force of the affirmation, therefore, is this: “He who, having already believed and having already been immersed, is the one who shall be saved” [emp. WJ]. Note Lenski’s clear statement: “Both acts [belief and baptism] would precede the future act sothesetai [shall be saved]” (766).
We should also note that the aorist participle, “believeth,” is constative in force, i.e., it embraces the entire life of the believer in his fidelity to Christ (Lenski, 766; cf. “lived” and “reigned” in Revelation 20:4). The person who refuses to maintain his fidelity will not be saved in the end.
Due to the fact that some religionists are so saturated with the notion that salvation is by “faith alone” (a doctrine alien to the New Testament, and specifically repudiated therein — see Jas. 2:24), they resort to various interpretative contortions in an effort to evade the transparent instruction of this passage. Typical of this maneuver was prominent Baptist scholar, A.T. Robertson, who, in his massive Grammar of the Greek New Testament, asserted that sometimes grammar must yield to theology (389). The practical meaning of that statement is this: Sometimes it becomes necessary to ignore what the text actually says, and in its place substitute one’s opinion! The fact is, the grammar is inspired; one’s personal theology is not!
And so, relative to Mark 16:16, Robertson, in his Word Pictures, wrote:
“The omission of baptized with ‘disbelieveth’ [16:16b] would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism” (1.405).
Quite frankly, that is pathetic. After introducing the person who “believes *not,”* why in the name of common sense would it be necessary for the Lord to list additional items of rebellion, in order to emphasize the unbeliever’s state of condemnation? Besides, elsewhere in the divine record Jesus did warn of the consequences of rejecting baptism. Such rejection, according to Luke’s record, is the reflection of an attitude that repudiates the very “counsel of God” (see Lk. 7:29-30).
Since this text represents such a crucial matter (the salvation of one’s soul), it is imperative that due consideration be given to the specifics mentioned. Let us, therefore, examine the key items.
In many religious systems, what one believes is relatively irrelevant. For example, in Buddhism one need not even believe in a personal God! By way of vivid contrast, Christianity is a religion grounded in history. Its validity depends upon whether or not God is real, whether or not he sent his Son, and whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is that Son.
To be a Christian one must subscribe to these historical realities (cf. Heb. 11:6; Jn. 8:24). One cannot, for instance, merely believe that Jesus was “nothing more than a perfect man,” as the Watchtower cult alleges, and have a valid faith. And how could one possibly possess a “faith” which acknowledges Christ as an historical figure, but which repudiates the fact that he was virgin-born, or that he was resurrected from the dead? The “faith” of modernism is no faith at all.
It is very difficult to fathom how some in the church today can contend that one may become a Christian without even understanding the components of what it takes to undergo this process. How can one become a Christian, for example, without believing in the very conditions specified in this passage? Does it make any sense to contend: “He who believes [not in the necessity of faith and baptism] and is baptized shall be saved”? And yet, there is a growing number in the body of Christ who contend that it is not necessary to understand the purpose of baptism in order to be saved — or that the rite itself is even essential!
What is baptism? It is strange that there should be confusion in the religious community on this important theme.
First, the Greek word baptizo means to “dip” or “immerse.” The ancient Greeks used the term of a sinking ship (Liddell, 283). In the Greek Old Testament (LXX), baptizo is rendered “dip” — in contrast to “sprinkle” or “pour” (see Lev. 14:15-16). Baptism involves a burial in water and a resurrection therefrom (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12).
Though there are earlier generic references to other forms, the first-recorded specific case that reveals a change in the mode of baptism occurred around A.D. 251, when Novatus of Rome, being ill, had water poured upon him in his bed. Eusebius, an ancient historian who records the incident, questioned whether such was even “baptism” (V.XLIII).
Second, as Mark 16:16 indicates, baptism was authorized only for believers (infants thus being excluded) (cf. Acts 8:12; 18:8). There exists not a single passage in the entire New Testament that even remotely hints that babies were administered the ordinance of baptism.
Third, the focus of the rite was to bring a person out of the state of sin.
“And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16).
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,” (Eph. 5:25-26).
“which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).
And introduce him into a relationship with Jesus Christ
“Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).
“For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27).
This transition into Christ also affiliates one with the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:3-5), or the “body” of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the same as the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24).
The term “saved” depicts the result of one’s sincere obedience to the gospel plan. It is the equivalent of “forgiven,” “redeemed,” “cleansed,” etc. It reflects the assurance of pardon from God for all past sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), and embodies the hope of final deliverance at the conclusion of a faithful life (Rom. 13:11; 1 Thes. 5:8; 1 Pet. 1:9).
The notion that the Christian’s salvation is so secure that he can never be lost — no matter what he does — has no biblical basis (Gal. 5:4; Heb. 3:12; 2 Pet. 2:1). For further study, see our booklet, Eternal Security – Fact or Fiction?
Thus stands Mark 16:16 in all of its power. It cannot be dismissed by textual critics, nor rationalized by a sectarian clergy. It is profound, yet simple. It is demanding, yet refreshing. It must be practiced, and then proclaimed — so help us God.
Hey Guys: don't get me wrong, I think overall this back and forth is interesting-I had to study Mark's ending earlier this year when preaching from Mark--but let's move away from the debate angle, por favor. These forums are designed primarily to deal with technical and resource needs of Logos. The debates (and I have participated in my share) get away from that goal, and sometimes get heated.
Imagine that: heated debate about theology? Go figure. [;)] Blessings to you all. Hey, come to Monroe, MI, I will let you buy me a Tim Horton's coffee and we'll debate (and you will probably win).
Imagine that: heated debate about theology? Go figure. Blessings to you all. Hey, come to Monroe, MI, I will let you buy me a Tim Horton's coffee and we'll debate (and you will probably win).
That sounds like fun, may have to stop by when I'm down south next time. ( although I am more inclined to American coffee [;)] )
Hey, come to Monroe, MI, I will let you buy me a Tim Horton's coffee and we'll debate (and you will probably win).
I'll pay for the coffee if you pay for my trip there!
Hey, come to Monroe, MI, I will let you buy me a Tim Horton's coffee and we'll debate (and you will probably win). I'll pay for the coffee if you pay for my trip there!
. . . all comments made by the forum poster are his alone and do not reflect the views of his spouse, or the financial discussions and decision overrides that may result . . .
( although I am more inclined to American coffee )
Just had me some "Indonesian" coffee at a place called Cafe Classics that was very very good. But I was at least drinking it in America . . .
( although I am more inclined to American coffee ) Just had me some "Indonesian" coffee at a place called Cafe Classics that was very very good. But I was at least drinking it in America . . .
I only speak in jest. I married one of those girls with a French sounding name, who's family is from that country south of Detroit...
ith a French sounding name,
do you sound French when you call to her? [:)]
ith a French sounding name, do you sound French when you call to her?
do you sound French when you call to her?
I guess I never checked how the French say "Yes dear" [A]
As promised, it is available today. I use Bible Gateway a lot to send out links to scriptures, and the NIV2011 is now it for the NIV; no "classic version" available. Plus, the TNIV is gone as of today.
I have not read any of it yet, much less done any comparrisons, so I cannot comment. But I thought some of you might like to see it.
http://tinyurl.com/yjoscgx
1 Cor. 1:10 old NIV
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
1 Cor. 1:10 new NIV
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
The Mark 16:9-20 disclaimer became more noticeable.
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
I prefer it when they put verses like these in [square brackets] with a footnote explaining why.
Whilst the consensus is that these verses were not in the original the only way that this could be truly established as a fact is if we found the original. Personally I would say that it is a highly probable deduction not a fact.
One thing I recently saw was the possibility that Mark deliberately ended the gospel abruptly so we would ask ourselves whether or not we would be afraid, like the women, to testify of His resurrection. In other words that he had an evangelistic intent. Just a thought.
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 appreciate that, but at the same time, such thinking, if taken seriously, would negate any need for textual criticism at all. Where does the line get drawn? Should we place the Johannine Comma back in 1 John simply because we don't have the original? Should it at least be there in brackets?
Not trying to be argumentative at all. Don't hear that in my words. I realize some on here disagree, but I see no evidence that the long ending of Mark is original to the document. The most conservative of NT scholars agree with that. So, to me, if it's not canon, it shouldn't be in the main text--even in brackets. Let it be in the books on textual criticism or in the commentaries.
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.
Not trying to be argumentative at all. Don't hear that in my words. I realize some on here disagree, but I see no evidence that the long ending of Mark is original to the document
Don't see this as argumentative at all and believe me I understand the reasons why these verses are not considered original but there are far too many possible explanations that can be offered to support any of the proposed 'originals' for anyone to claim that they know what the original said. I am not anti textual criticism, I personally favour the critical texts but I think it is more honest to say that based on the evidence this is what we believe the original said. As unlikely as it may be, we only need someone to find an older text that contains the 'extra' verses to trigger a major re-evaluation of 100 years of textual criticism along with a new wave of conspiracy theories.
R. Mansfield Replied:
>>>>. If one translation would have sufficed, we would all be using the Septuagint today.
Question: The 199 BC Version or the 425 AD one? [and those are as different as the KJV 1611 and the NIV 2010]
Graham Owen Replied:
>>>>we only need someone to find an older text that contains the 'extra' verses to trigger a major re-evaluation of 100 years of textual criticism along with a new wave of conspiracy theories.
Amen! [Would love to see it happen]
I like to understand the reasoning behind the choices the textual critics make. I find several versions are helpful in my studies But having an annual revision to the "Word of God" is more akin to a product recall than scholarship.
We're in an interesting time. In the past, translation revisions took decades. Committees infrequently met, and if they needed to correspond between meetings, they depended upon the postal service. Checking and rechecking textual information, lexicons and other research material was done in physical books, and often even meant hours spent in the library by committee members.
Now with virtual libraries of resources on computers and the instant communication via email, the process is greatly sped up. Even minor updates are released which probably would have waited for major new editions in the past. The HCSB was the first translation created entirely using Bible software.
This historically unparalleled access to information by translators has meant multiple editions of major translation families in a very condensed timespan:
It's wonderful to have such an efficient system, but the downside to all this is exactly what you describe--it feels like a product recall after awhile. And for those who seriously pay attention to translational issues and distinctions can easily get frustrated when the Bible they bought last year is officially out of date this year. Add that to the reality that the English language probably has too many translations to begin with, and translations have become not just a tool for the church, but a product in a competitive marketplace...and well, it certainly is problematic.
On the positive side, we have some very good translations--the best history has ever seen. But I hope that translation committees and publishers will start to put the brakes on the frequent updates for a while. It would be nice if the translations listed above saw no more updates for at least a decade if not longer.
I like the fact that they corrected 1 Corinthians 1:10 where the Greek in essence says "That all of you speak the same thing..." which does away with the ridiculous idea that "we have to agree to disagree" in certain doctrinal issues or "you have your interpretation and I have my interpretation" kind of statements. I will certainly have to check out the rest of the verses. So far they still have Acts 8:37 on the footnote and leave Mark 16:9-20 in the text. In the end, I don't mind, it's my job to explain certain textual issues to the brethren at church, so it's all good..."so far, so good, so what" hehehe
What happened to Christ in Ephesians 4:20?
Old NIV
20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way.
New NIV
20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned
Oh! I guess they moved Him to verse 21.
We're in an interesting time. In the past, translation revisions took decades. Committees infrequently met, and if they needed to correspond between meetings, they depended upon the postal service. Checking and rechecking textual information, lexicons and other research material was done in physical books, and often even meant hours spent in the library by committee members. Now with virtual libraries of resources on computers and the instant communication via email, the process is greatly sped up. Even minor updates are released which probably would have waited for major new editions in the past. The HCSB was the first translation created entirely using Bible software.
When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. And I wouldn't want to live in any other time. It is exciting to be alive today.
We're in an interesting time. In the past, translation revisions took decades. Committees infrequently met, and if they needed to correspond between meetings, they depended upon the postal service. Checking and rechecking textual information, lexicons and other research material was done in physical books, and often even meant hours spent in the library by committee members. Now with virtual libraries of resources on computers and the instant communication via email, the process is greatly sped up. Even minor updates are released which probably would have waited for major new editions in the past. The HCSB was the first translation created entirely using Bible software. When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. And I wouldn't want to live in any other time. It is exciting to be alive today.
Yes, I agree with you Matthew. It reminds me Daniel 12:4 "...and knowledge shall increase." in a sense of all the available tools and much faster ways of communication. Is Logos mentioned in that scripture also? [:)]
