Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Sat, Oct. 17 2009 06:15 PM EDT

NIV Translation Team Adds Two More Scholars

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

Bill Mounce, who was part of the translation team for the English Standard Version of the Bible, was elected this week to join the NIV team.

Mounce, who served as the New Testament chair of the ESV translation, stressed in a blog post this week that he is not unhappy with the ESV and "jumping ship."

But he said he strongly believes in different translation philosophies and doesn't believe that one size fits all.

"The translator's responsibility is to be consistent with that stated philosophy," he wrote. "So I have no trouble looking at the NIV’s translation philosophy and working within those guidelines."

Mounce will be working on the revision of the New International Version Bible, which has not been updated in 25 years. NIV publisher Zondervan and global ministry Biblica announced last month that they would discontinue sales of the controversial TNIV (Today's New International Version) and focus efforts on publishing an updated NIV by 2011.

Mounce shares a bit of rival history with one of the TNIV translators who is also on the team (Committee for Bible Translation) working on the NIV revision.

Ever since the ESV and TNIV were published nearly a decade ago, scholars on both teams have directed criticisms toward each other's translations.

Mounce is currently preparing to address the Evangelical Theological Society next month with a presentation on "Can the ESV and TNIV Coexist in the Same Universe?" which was scheduled before the announcement about axing the TNIV.

Last year, TNIV translator Mark L. Strauss presented a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting critiquing the ESV and making arguments on "why the English Standard Version should not become the Standard English Version."

Contending that the ESV does not use "normal English," Strauss stated, "[T]he ESV seems to me to be overly literal – full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of 'Biblish.' Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak."

Strauss also took aim at the gender language, which was also a point of controversy with the TNIV Bible. He criticized the ESV's inconsistency in the removal and retaining of words such as "man" or "men."

While the ESV uses gender inclusive terms such as "one" and "person" in some passages, in other parts of the Bible it retains "man" Strauss pointed out.

The TNIV also suffered a heap of criticisms but for its even more aggressive push for gender inclusive language. Evangelical scholars denounced the removal of many references such as "son," "he," "him," "father," and "brother."

Gender language will be on the table for discussion for the NIV update. Mounce said it is his biggest concern.

In addition to Mounce, Jeannine Brown, professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minn., was elected to membership in the Committee for Bible Translation and will also join the NIV translation work.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GF,

    Your assumptions on my political viewpoint is way off base and shows your bias. I am usually confused with being a conservative by both the right and the left (not to mention the rest of the political world). You should ask more questions before making silly and completely ignorant statements about others' politics.

    Since I utilize over 75 different bibles from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and English (and sometimes German) your attempt at portraying me as some type of biblical liberal is both disgusting and adolescent.

    Since you are supporting propaganda that comes from your political position, you are not a trustworthy source. The point is to be true to the truth and the biblical text, not to some politics.

    Since this coming perversion of the Scriptures come from and is being endorsed by those who claim to be protecting the Scriptures from being tainted, it is the ultimate in hypocrisy and God will judge just as harshly those who pervert the Scriptures for political conservatism as He will for those who do for liberalism.

    Beware, he doesn't take kindly to His name being blasphemed for any reason - even political games such as the one being played by this joker.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mounce is a great addition to the team. He is an excellent Greek scholar. I have been learning Greek from his textbook (Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar) and I can say he has an excellent grasp of the language.

    I grew up using the NIV but have switched to more formal translations (NASB, ESV) in recent years. It will be interesting to see what they revise though I cannot see how much English has changed in the last 25 years.

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:03 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 14

    OS, I didn't know about this. I've taken much time looking over these links, before answering your question.

    http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

    http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    I think it's a great idea, I like all these links, and I've bookmarked them all. I will begin using Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia immediately. Thank you for leading me to them.

    I agree that, "The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts." (Conservative Bible Project)

    I don't agree when you say, "...the conservatives have decided to write a conservative bible translation (Conservapedia) that isn't true to the Word...". That is clearly not their expressed intention.

    I don't agree when you say, "Neither conservatives or liberals look to protect the word of God, they are looking to protect their political views and impose those views on Scripture."

    Just because the liberals have for years been "looking to protect their political views and impose those views on Scripture", by affecting certain Bible versions with their liberal bias (eg. RSV, NIV, TNIV) and making those not "true to the Word" of God, it doesn't mean that conservatives would do likewise.
    When someone removes liberal/feminist bias from a bible translation, that is not the same as adding a conservative bias. They're simply removing the bias the liberals added.

    "What we need are biblicists not conservatives or liberals don't you think?" If that was possible, it would have been done.

    It's interesting that while I use the NASB and the ESV, you use the TNIV and the NIV.
    The producers of the NIV have convinced many people that the NIV is a middle-of-the-road Bible, when in truth, it's left of center. Similarly, you pose as a centrist, when you're actually left of center (see your post record).
    Liberals habitually portray themselves, the left-wing media they watch, the left-wing Bibles they read and the left-wing heretical churches they attend as "mainstream", which they are not.

    God is not a liberal.
    Christians who love God should use the Bible version that is closest to the words God chose.
    Maybe it's time you changed your political loyalty to the group that's doing the right thing (removing liberal bias from God's Word), rather than the wrong thing (adding liberal bias to God's Word).

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If God wanted you to use the Bible version closest to the words He wrote, which version would He want you to use?

  • Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    GF,

    And the conservatives have decided to write a conservative bible translation (Conservapedia) that isn't true to the Word as well. Neither conservatives or liberals look to protect the word of God, they are looking to protect their political views and impose those views on Scripture. What we need are biblicists not conservatives or liberals don't you think?

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 8

    nolalady said,

    "If someone wants to put commentary, paranthetical statements, or explanations..fine, we then know it is their opinion or interpretation, but keep the text itself accurate.."

    Yes, and we agree that the more a translation attempts to respect the word choices God made, the better that version is.
    For liberals who don't believe the Bible is the very word of God, but believe that the Bible simply contains the word of God, it isn't necessary to stick with the words used in the earliest Bible copies since they don't believe the words selected were God's words.

    Translations that focus on readability and address their liberal causes (eg. replacing God's word choices with gender-neutral language) are more acceptable to them, than accurate translations.
    To justify their acceptance of perverted translations, they will speak long and often about there being no definitive translation and no Bible copy early enough to be considered accurate.
    As accurate, these liberals will only accept an original. They will not accept a copy even 100 years old, if it uses man to refer to both men and women etc...

    Thankfully, many of us see through these purveyors of liberal nonsense, while they still think we're living in the 1980's and are stunned we won't listen to them anymore.

    Excellent comment and post record comments. I very much hope to read more of your comments.
    What is the reason for your name nolalady? Is that no lalady or nola lady?

    I'd rather be true to God's Word than popular.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You either believe that the Bible IS God's Word or the Bible simply contains God's Word.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    As long as we all understand that there is no one translation that is correct (maybe better than others though), we will do fine. All translations have interpretative issue including the ESV which is the one I have found the best so far. The ESV does lose some readability though which means there is room for other choices like the NIV or TNIV. I use a TNIV quite a bit and know what there is there.

    Mounce is an excellent addition to the team, he is a stand-up scholar.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Gibbons... agreed. If someone wants to put commentary, paranthetical statements, or explanations..fine, we then know it is their opinion or interpretation, but keep the text itself accurate..

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:02 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    This story hints a lot but is really obscure.

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:27 am Agree: 9   Disagree: 12

    xizwyck, many of them are "gospel peddlers", that's true. Thanks for the link. After I post this, I'm going to check it out.

    Here's one you might like: http://www.esvstudybible.org/search

    I have the new ESV Study Bible ($31.49), with 2752 pages, 20,000 notes, 200 full-color maps, 40 full-color illustrations, 50 articles, 200+ charts, 80,000 cross-references, and a free online version with other features including audio; and I also have the latest NASB Reference Bible, which is the most accurate translation.

    I love these two Bibles and would highly recommend them.

    I have one Bible, given to me, I would never use, because of its deliberate attempt to be more readable at the expense of accuracy, and its translation by a board influenced by radical feminists and liberal activists.

    The board behind the NIV did a great job publishing extra-biblical materials that helped the popularity of the NIV.
    But as more and more people, with more than a passing interest in God, look closely at modern translations, they're asking deeper questions about who the people are on the translation boards and why they want to translate God's Word a certain way.

    When one Bible publisher repeatedly states "the most popular translation" and another states "the most accurate translation", I know where I'm going.

    I'd rather be true to God's Word than popular.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You either believe that the Bible IS God's Word or the Bible simply contains God's Word.

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:10 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    It aught to be free... like www.netbible.com

    ... gospel peddlers ...

    Reimburse for cost of production is one thing, excessive profits is another.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links