New NIV Text Available Online November 1st.

Page 1 of 3 (49 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 48 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 774
Jerry Bush | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010 8:05 AM

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

iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 8:19 AM

I remember a base package crossgrade to just get the TNIV... I expect this one to be the same.

Posts 1875
Alan Macgregor | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 9:02 AM

Looks like we shall be getting an anglicised version again via Hodder & Stoughton. Big Smile

iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8

MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8

iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1

iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1

Posts 1605
PL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 9:44 AM

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

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 10:50 AM

I suggest reading the materials here http://nivbibleupdate.com/

Posts 8646
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 11:50 AM

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.  

Posts 774
Jerry Bush | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 12:01 PM

Douglas Alvarenga:

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.

Jerry

iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.

Posts 8646
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 12:08 PM

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

Posts 1729
Allen Browne | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Oct 21 2010 6:54 PM

Thanks for posting the link, Jerry.

When available in Logos, this will be an important update (as will the OT interlinear in NIV)

Posts 2917
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 5:03 AM

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]

Posts 3917
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 5:59 AM

Douglas Alvarenga:
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 like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 774
Jerry Bush | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 7:40 AM

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...

Jerry

iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.

Posts 774
Jerry Bush | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 7:48 AM

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.

Jerry

iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 8:05 AM

Jerry Bush:
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.

 

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 4:25 PM

Douglas Alvarenga:

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, 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.

Posts 249
Giovanni Baggio | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 6:20 PM

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:

Acts 8:37
(KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(1611 KJV) 
And Philip said, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God.
(1560 Geneva Bible) And Philippe said vnto him, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Then he answered, and saide, I beleeue that that Iesus Christ is that Sonne of God.
(1526 Tyndale) Philip sayde vnto him: Yf thou beleve with all thyne hert thou mayst. He answered and sayde: I beleve that Iesus Christe is the sonne of God.
 
Counterfeit Versions
(NIV) Omitted
(ESV) Omitted
(RSV) Omitted
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) - Omitted
(NAB-Roman Catholic) - Omitted - “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)
(NASB)   [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”
(NKJV) Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)

Textus Receptus
eipen de o jilippoV ei pisteueiV ex olhV thV kardiaV exestin apokriqeiV de eipen pisteuw ton uion tou qeou einai ton ihsoun criston
 
Hort-Westcott Critical Text
Omitted
 
Corrupted Manuscripts
This verse is corrupted in the following manuscripts:
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Fourth century
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
C 04 - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century
L 020 - Ninth century
P 025 - Ninth century
P 45 - Third century
P 74 - Seventh Century
 
Affected Teaching
Acts 8:37 is another verse which met its doom in the 2nd century. It is omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is also omitted in the NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, and NAB. The NASB and the NKJV are more subtle in the way they attack this verse. The NASB places brackets around the verse and then states without any qualifying evidence that “Early manuscripts do not contain this verse.” This statement is very vague and really means nothing since all manuscripts are early. What is the definition of early? 1st century, 2nd century, 5th century? The NKJV (New King James Version) is also very subtle in its attack. The center column of the NKJV is Satan’s playground and on this verse it states, “NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.” The NU Text they are referring to is the Nestle Aland Text (N) and the United Bible Societies Text (U). Both of which are heavily based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So the NKJV claiming to be a revision of the King James, is another false version which, according to Dr. D.A. Waite in his research, which I have in my possession, departs from the Textus Receptus in 2,000+ places. Now the second half of their claim. What Western texts? What is the Latin tradition? Is it referring to Jerome’s corrupt Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, is it the Old Latin Vulgate c. 90-150 A.D., or is it Roman Catholic tradition?

There are 5255 extant manuscripts and unless one studies the manuscript issue, they will never know that statements such as “Oldest and Best” or “Early Manuscripts” refer to the two corrupted manuscripts of the 4th century, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, the modern translations are based on only 45 manuscripts which are less than 1% of all manuscripts. This means that the modern versions have completely and intentionally disregarded over 99% of the manuscripts. Zane Hodges authored a text in a book called “The Majority Text” which is also a misnomer. He only used 414 manuscripts which is only 8% of the extant manuscripts. How could that be considered the majority? Christians must begin to question these things, it is necessary that they do.

Acts 8:37 is another testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. By the Ethiopian Eunuch using the word “is” (present tense in Greek) instead of “was” he was stating a fact that Jesus is alive. His resurrection was doubted by many but here the Scripture is stating that He is alive plus it is another scriptural testimony of Jesus being the Son of God, a title of Divinity. This is why the Gnostics would have ripped it out of the text, simply because they did not believe that God, being good, could dwell in a sinful, corrupted human body. They did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God only a good human being, plus that He only became Christ at His birth without pre-existence. This verse is in the Old Latin Vulgate of 90-150 A.D. which was a direct translation from the original autographs.

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 6:39 PM

Giovanni Baggio:
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.

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 1157
Tom Reynolds | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 22 2010 8:11 PM

Jerry Bush:

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

Posts 3917
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 23 2010 9:27 AM

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 Smile

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 23 2010 10:07 AM

Giovanni Baggio:
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:

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.

Giovanni Baggio:
“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.

Giovanni Baggio:
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 Bible
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey
An Introduction to the New Testament

Page 1 of 3 (49 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS