squiz

In Australia (and Ireland, I'm told) that would be "yous".

Newfie

In Newfoundland, it would be youse.

Julio

Wasn't the NIV quietly "revised" a few times after its original publication?
Nevertheless, the first translators left it clear enough in the last paragraph of its Preface that "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals."
That is, those "imperfect men" [read religious MERCHANTS] have left enough room for posterior revisions - until they will recognise their moral & spiritual bankruptcy [they shall never!] to stop fooling around with the divine Word of God called "The Holy Bible", some bizarre "Original Text" none of the translators has EVER seen in his life!
If Bible translators are not the cynics they are, what are they?!...

bacht

I have an old parallel bible with four translations: KJV, NASB, NEB and Jerusalem Bible (in English). This was published in the early 1970s. The Jerusalem Bible is quite helpful in its notes, providing not only alternate readings and dates but explanations of the text based on modern scholarship (eg. the conquest of Jericho by Joshua being a conflation of two accounts, which are separated in the text by brackets). I also like their headings and section titles, makes it easy to skim through to what you're interested in. My most "modern" translation is the NRSV with apocrypha which seems quite good, though I'm still emotionally attached to the 1952 RSV edition (the one I grew up with). [I bought an NIV in the late 70s but never used it much]

Seeing the text in parallel translations can be quite helpful. A single verse can be translated in different ways, and the combination of all of them tends to clarify and de-mystify the original more than following a single version can imo. Also the page layout can sometimes highlight (or obscure) certain points, it's interesting to see how the different translators utilize white space.

Robert Price's "Pre-Nicene New Testament" has all the canonical books in his own translations. This is interesting in the places where he has re-arranged verses and chapters according to modern scholars' re-constructions (eg. gospel of John). He also indicates layers of redaction with italicized text, but this of course is more conjectural. Price's knowledge of NT scholarship is staggering, reaching back into the last century and right up to now (and he cites Doherty favourably).

John Kesler

For starters, the NIV needs to get translators who are committed to faithfully translating the text rather than a priori assuming its inerrancy. One need only read the preface to the NIV to see the problem. The emphasis is mine:

This bias shows through in the NIV's attempts to smooth over discrepancies. I discuss one example of this bias in this thread titled "How Old Was Ishmael in Genesis 21."

The NIV, like other translations, doesn't translate Genesis 33:20 or 46:2-3 correctly, and this hides the fact that the patriarchs worshiped the Canaanite deity El.

The New Jerusalem Bible does a much better job, as evidenced by the comparison:

Julio

This weird god [idol] El [and Elohim] is still in Isaiah 46:9 and other passages.
It is El himself who gives that name. El is one god, and Elohim are several. Confusing.
The story that there is none other god like El is El's vanity. In fact, his deeds throughout the history of Israel are those of one brutal god like none other!

squiz

We can't spell.

Toto

It seems that the new version will pander to conservative evangelicals on the issue of gender neutral language.

Gender-neutral Bible to be pushed out: A new New International Version, due in 2011, will replace one that had rankled some evangelicals.

Newfie

I wouldn't say that for sure. Newfoundland dialects are derived from very old English and Irish forms, but it can certainly be said that they are ... ah, unique, so your spellings are probably still correct.

gdeering

To get back to something that DCH said, if the aim of translation is fidelity to a source (not that I am saying an original document) why would one use gender neutral language?

I understand the answer is to look at the over arching agenda of the NIV. But to play devil's lexicographer, unless there was a case for gender neutral language in the original why change the male-oriented nature of the text?


Gregg