Oh boy. I'm not surprised to hear that Biblica (fka the International Bible Society of New York, about 3 name changes ago) will cease publishing the TNIV. It just hasn't been selling. The good news is that they are admitting that they went too far in the translation itself. The bad news is that they aren't admitting how stupid it was to push the TNIV as the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. It was that, more than anything else, that turned me so much against it. Of course, in the same breath they were admitting that no translation is perfect, especially one over 30 years old, so it was a foregone conclusion that the TNIV would go out of print later if not sooner.
But what really twists my shorts is the admission that it was a mistake to promise not to ever change the NIV again (this announcement made shortly before the original release of the TNIV). They already bombed changing the NIV last time, and they're already planning to do it again? This is not going to help Zondervan's market share at all.
Douglas Moo, a professor at Wheaton College and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, said the group is committed to "a complete review of every gender related change."
"I am not sure how it's going to come out," Moo said. "We have a genuine, authentic review process ... Everything is on the table." Most changes will have nothing to do with gender inclusivity, Moo said.
Yeah, right. That's pretty much what they said last time.
Well, the market will decide which version is best. But if they really take the 1984 NIV out of print, I don't think we'll ever see a Biblica edition of the Bible at the top of the sales charts again. There are just too many other options that weren't there in 1984.
Counter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're still full of it, you know that, right?
ReplyDeleteDo you really think, with all the doubletalk, that Biblica has any credibility left at this point? Methinks that's one reason behind the name change.
ReplyDeletePsalm 119:113 TNIV
I hate double-minded people,
but I love your law.
Well...currently more than this blog does...but this blog's lack of credibility has less to do with double talk and more to do with slander.
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside the fact that you've confused libel with slander, the definition of either one requires that I disseminate information I know to be false to the detriment of a person or corporation (sorry, Bible versions don't have legal standing in a libel case). This I refuse to do, and if you have any evidence that I have done so I am willing to apologise. I am, however, free to share my own opinion, and this I have done. I have also chosen to allow you to share your own opinions in comments to these posts. But please: hold fast to the truth; if you are just sharing your negative opinion without any facts to back it up, your comments will not be approved henceforth.
ReplyDeleteIf I have said anything about the motives of the CBT, it is of course my conjectured opinion, and doesn't reflect personally on any individual member of the CBT. I don't know them personally and have deliberately kept out of the discussion any personal correspondence I may have had with any particular member.
I welcome the efforts of any CBT member toward resolving any misconceived ideas I may have about their motives or policies, but I will first have a question that I imagine will probably be hard for him to answer. If he can give a definitive answer (James 5:2), and it is "Yes," then I'll have one follow-up question that will need answered, and the discussion can begin.
"Leaving aside the fact that you've confused libel with slander, the definition of either one requires that I disseminate information I know to be false to the detriment of a person or corporation (sorry, Bible versions don't have legal standing in a libel case)."
ReplyDeleteFor someone who claims to be a linguist, you sure do jump quickly on prescriptivist wagon. Sure, maybe in a court of law there's a important legal distinction between the two, but last time I check this is a blog - and contemporary usage hasn't followed that silly legal distinction for quite some time - if ever.
"But please: hold fast to the truth; if you are just sharing your negative opinion without any facts to back it up, your comments will not be approved henceforth."
Under that criteria, you shouldn't be approving your own posts, all you do is share your own negative opinion.
I don't know them personally and have deliberately kept out of the discussion any personal correspondence I may have had with any particular member.
What discussion? This is your personal sandbox for rants, not discussion - and the fact that you're willing to block comments because someone disagrees with you proves it.
Actually, Mike, you have done more to stimulate discussion on my Bible-related posts than anyone else. And just to show my good will, I promise to approve your next comment, even if it is full of it.
ReplyDelete