Best-Selling Bible Gets a RemakeBy ERIC GORSKI, AP
posted: 8 HOURS 38 MINUTES AGOcomments: 1838filed under: National NewsWith HP wireless printers, you could have printed this from any room in the house. Live wirelessly. Print wirelessly.


PRINT|E-MAILMOREText SizeAAA(Sept. 2) - The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text. The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.
"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand," said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.
Skip over this content



But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.
The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it. So in some verses, references to "sons of God" became "children of God," for example.
Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.
Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV's overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more transparent and that they will actively promote what they describe as a long-held practice of inviting input from scholars and readers.
The NIV was first published in 1978 and more than 300 million NIV Bibles are in print worldwide; its publishers and distributors say the translation accounts for 30 percent of Bibles sold in North America.
The Committee on Bible Translation, an independent group of conservative scholars and translators formed in 1965 to create and revise the NIV, will oversee the new revision.
An effort earlier this decade to create a separate version of the NIV that used more gender-inclusive language in an attempt to reach a younger audience fell flat with groups that felt it crossed the line.
That edition, Today's New International Version, will cease publication once the new-look NIV is released, said Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, its North American publisher.
"Whatever its strengths, the TNIV has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world," Girkins said.
It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from "sons of God" to "children of God," or "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." In Genesis I, God created "human beings" in his own image instead of "man."
Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God's relationships with individuals.
The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition "has gone beyond acceptable translation standards."
"We fell short of the trust that has been placed in us," said Danby, of Biblica. "We failed to make a clear case for the revisions."
Danby said that freezing the NIV in its 1984 state was also a mistake, however. He emphasized that in the revision, about 90 percent of the NIV will be unchanged.
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."
One of the most vocal critics of gender-inclusive translations, Randy Stinson of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the group supports updating the NIV. He credited organizers for their openness.
"We're still probably going to differ on the way they handle some of the gender language," Stinson said. "But we're open and anxious to see what they come up with and we're really going to be reserving judgment."
Most changes will have nothing to do with gender inclusivity, Moo said. And the TNIV provides a glimpse of likely changes: In the '84 NIV, Mary is "with child," but in the TNIV she is "pregnant." In the NIV version of Psalm 146:9, "The Lord watches over the alien." The TNIV used "foreigner" instead of "alien."





okay,so what are your thoughts. how many times has the bible been changed, how many times has it been changed. if its being changed can you really believe that this is the same word of god that has been passed down origonally? if they are changing things like god created man in his own image instead of god created people. could this mean god didnt like women. maybe god doesnt beleive women should go to heaven? thoughts?


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

just stick with the King James version....

The fact that there are already so many versions is a testament to the fact that too much of it has been politicized over the course of history. The King James version is no exception.

Having being raised Catholic, I've always had a problem with evangelicals and how hippy dippy and new agey their version of Christianity is. For people who pride themselves on being Conservatives, they sure aren't very traditional about their religion. It's all foo-foo about having personal relationships with Jesus and the joy of God and all that. So dumbing down the bible is yet another part of their goal to transform God into a generic Hollywood movie star. A simple archetype with no nuance or personality.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:The fact that there are already so many versions is a testament to the fact that too much of it has been politicized over the course of history. The King James version is no exception.

at least the KJV has been in play for hundreds of years. while not quite the greek or aramic text, its the best we english speakers are going to get


but you and knox both have a good point. after its been changed X amount of times, is it really the same?

I'm not worried about another translation - the bible that they are translating from isn't changing after all. Its just a matter of semantics. I could say its important to the people who seem to think that The (English) Bible is the literal word of God with no room for interpretation - as if we originally received it in English (not to mention speaking in parables etc). You always tend to loose in translation and really that just can't be helped. Its especially bad translating from Hebrew - a language without punctuation.

What concerns me far more than this current re-translation is that we may never know if/how much tampering the Council of Nicea did to The New Testament.

saw this on another forum:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=91253&start=75

Quote:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void. And by "without form, and void" I mean a spherical molten mass; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, but only after the earth cooled enough for water vapour to condense and form the waters
1:3 And God said, "Oh @!#$, I forgot to make the Sun" So he went back in time before he made the Earth, and made the Sun. And God said Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Which was rather redundant, given that a spherical Earth already had the light and darkness divided. But God is obsessive compulsive.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And noted to himself to ensure that in 4.5 billion years, some of the inhabitants of the Earth would give it the same designation. And the evening and the morning (aka the past billion years or so, including the bit where he had to jump back in time) were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And then he said, that's just metaphorical.
1:7 And then God continued to speak metaphorically, with all the division of firmaments and what not.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And that was the end of that day. Which means he didn't do a goddamned thing all day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And then he said, "Oh, @!#$ that's right... I already did that. Well that was easy."
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas. And then he changed his mind and decided to call it the ocean: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass. Then he traveled forward in time and said let the earth bring the herb yielding seed. Finally, he went further ahead in time to make the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day

but is it just really wording and semantics when you dont nessicarily know 100% the origonal intent. your just guessing based on your own style of language. just seems in the hundreds and hundreds of years its been around, im sure its been changed several times by relegious zealots that believe they know exactly what god intended. and that it wasn't changed to suit their needs to me seems very doubtful.

what really surprised me is they said 90% will remained unchainged. so they are changing 10% of the bible? that to me just seems like a huge amount. heck that means if it had 10 changes it could be nothing like the original. im not a religious person myself. well okay i believe in a god type figure but dont believe in religion. seems to me if this is the word of god and this is what your basing your entire belief structure on you wouldn't just go changing what was written. its like going " yeah god is all powerful. he knows all, he has a reason for everything, BUT we know best how to change his words so you can understand them."


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

This kinda crap is what made me realize organized religeon is BS. Changing the bible and the 'word of god' is nothing new. Eating meat on sunday used to be a hell-worthy offense, but you don't see that kinda crap anymore do you? They change what makes you go to hell, they change the wording of the bible, all in order to remain relevant to society as it evolves.

Live life how you want to live it, just be conscious of others and stick to the basic morals.

ThatGuy85 wrote:Eating meat on sunday used to be a hell-worthy offense, but you don't see that kinda crap anymore do you?

On a similar note, look into the origins of not eating meat on Fridays' during lent. It's the original stimulus package.

I could understand if someone wanted to go back to the original texts and analyze the translation, but that's not what the revisions are. They are trying to read the English text and decide that they need to modernize it to make it more palatable. That in itself is ludicrous.

30 day fast, oh thats to hard. okay no meat on friday. oh man thats tough. okay we will alllow fish. 10 years from now. no meat on friday is to hard, okay you can eat a steak, but you have to feel bad about it afterwards. its nice to be able to change your religion to make it more comfortable for yourself.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

To quote dogma: You people don't celebrate your religion, you mourn it.

ThatGuy85 wrote:To quote dogma: You people don't celebrate your religion, you mourn it.

for a hillarious comedy i think more people should watch that movie and just think about what's being said.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

I liked that movie.... thought it was funny.....

And how many man changed versions of something that god supposedly said do you need before you consider the bible BS in general?

Personally.... I dont care about this.... I dont believe in the bible at all... so for me... its just another version of the same book of lies for more simple minded people to believe..

I'm not taking jabs at anyone in particular.... thats just how I feel about it.

Weebel wrote:I liked that movie.... thought it was funny.....

And how many man changed versions of something that god supposedly said do you need before you consider the bible BS in general?

Personally.... I dont care about this.... I dont believe in the bible at all... so for me... its just another version of the same book of lies for more simple minded people to believe..

I'm not taking jabs at anyone in particular.... thats just how I feel about it.

This could be the first thing you've ever said on this site that I agree with.

They could do a rewrite of "Go, Dog. Go!", slap a Bible cover on it, and I'd have about as much use for it as the current versions. Then again, I'd still respect people's choice to base their religion on it. I'm a fan of anything that helps keeps people sane, or at least gives the crazies something to occupy themselves with.



    Shop Manuals, Brochures:www.kenmcgeeautobooks.com

Hello all... I am a student at Baptist Bible College, and I want to prefix the rest
of my post with, I don't want to offend anyone or force anyone to believe or not
to believe... with that said, I used to have the same attitude, don't change
something that isn't broken, learn how to read... or even I don't read it because
I think it's a bunch of BS... but guess what... do you ever hear things out of
context? I know I do, and make a fool out of myself trying to justify what was
said and why it was said... context in the Bible is huge, for example, read
Psalm 137:8-9 NIV, "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is
he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks" WOW!!! Now does that mean God will
bless you for killing infants of ungodly women? No, because if you read the
whole passage and understood the background and history you would know
the real meaning... that's the case with the whole Bible... it's not really meant
to be read as a story book, but more so, it should be investigated and thought
out and people should cross reference events and dig deeper and deeper
into it... but what people do is read something, not understand it, take the
literal way or in some cases non-literal way and discredit it without any substance...
Another example could be Psalm 101... it talks about how a Christian ought
to live his or her life... towards the end it talks about cutting off evildoers
(non-christians), so, does that mean I should kill you just like other religions do...
No, it means to live my life following Christ and keep myself away from anything
that could possibly tempt me back to my old ways... Context, Context, Context...
Long example to say this, changing a few words here and there to better
understand it in our language doesn't and hasn't changed the theme of this
book... 1.)love God and Glorify Him with everything you do and 2.) love others
as if you were loving Christ... so, if that means we change a couple words here
and there, so people can understand them easier and get saved and start
living a better life because of it, so be it... the fact still remains... we are sinners
in need of a Saviour and that Saviour is Jesus... anyone can know Him, anyone
can go to Heaven, all you have to do is believe... He already did the hard part at
the cross... another one of my favorite verses to use for example would be
2 timothy 3:16, " All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...", out of context
what does it mean? no, really go ahead and ask yourself? now, what does it
mean in context? could it be that God is so omni-everything that He can control
the actions... or a better way to "word" it would be, do you really think God would
be in control of the entire universe, time, even the time before time began and
after it will end, and not be able to get His point across through a couple
thousand words? really? think about that... to the people that just say that
Christians are dumb believers that just believe anything... how difficult is it for
me to believe something I can't physically see and seek after it daily to get a
better understanding of the unseen, yet because you can't see it you take the
easy route of not believing... just because you don't want to... no other reason,
no investigating, or better yet, you base it off a "religion" and say if that's a
Christan i don't wanna be one... to those i challenge to talk to someone about
Jesus, not church, not religion, not anything other than Jesus and what He can
do for you... finally in closing, does the Bible need to be changed? If it saves or
helps save a lost and dying world, then yes it does... the context will never
change, just the ease of reading(understanding) So, i just want to say thank you
if you read all of this and thank you if you actually read this with open ears, as i
read all of your posts with open ears to know what was going on, instead of
barging in here with my opinion and talking down to everyone...

I LOVE YOU ALL... long live the j-body and what up to all my ln2/ 2200 brothers???

Watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

I'm not asking you to believe the 2nd or third parts, but watch the first third of the movie, then come back here and tell us how you feel.

Religion itself, at it's core isn't a bad idea. If I were to make a guess it was 'invented' long ago to prevent people and society from devolving into a pack of animals. The fear of an all-powerful being was enough to keep most people in line. Now we have man-made laws that have pretty much taken the place of religion, and I think that's why fewer and fewer people are going to church.

ThatGuy85, I hope you're not taking Zeitgeist as the be-all, end-all answer to what's wrong with religion, but it should, at the very least, make you question it if you didn't before. For example, all of the similarities between each story of each religion's god could be used as an argument for it's truth, where each culture simply having it's own names for things and characters. Over thousands of years, it's easy to see how the same story with different names could evolve to having different meanings, since much of it was passed down merely by story telling, and not the written word. Don't get me wrong, I think that movie has a very interesting take on it, but I don't necessarily think they're at the correct conclusion. One of the great ironies of that movie is that it starts by "debunking" religion, in particular, Christianity, and ends with the conclusion that we are headed toward something predicted in the very Bible it is trying to discredit. Makes you start to think even more, does it not?

No, of course not. Nothing is the end-all be-all of the religion debate, except death. I like to show it to people because it can make even the most hardcore biblethumpers go "Wait.... What? Hmm..."

Do I think there is some form of a higher power that none of us have the capability to understand? Probably. Do I think it's a fatherly bearded figure that shakes his finger at me whenever I 'sin'? No, and those who do drive me insane.

shiZblam wrote:

Weebel wrote:I liked that movie.... thought it was funny.....

And how many man changed versions of something that god supposedly said do you need before you consider the bible BS in general?

Personally.... I dont care about this.... I dont believe in the bible at all... so for me... its just another version of the same book of lies for more simple minded people to believe..

I'm not taking jabs at anyone in particular.... thats just how I feel about it.

This could be the first thing you've ever said on this site that I agree with.

Ha ha ha ha....

come on there has to have been something else LOL

But in all seriousness... I dont agree with half the things I post here after going back and reading it a month later either.... so I understand..

brian warren. your taking something that was basically supposedly written for you to follow. a guide map so to say. the thing is. people are sitting there and deciding what the context was when they probalby have no actual clue what it is because our speach and text and way of talking has changed over the years. basically someone is saying, well this is the book of god and i know exactly what god means here so im going to change it. that is one of my biggest problems. people assuming they know the exact context of what was supposedly written. people dont. and they shouldnt change it if that is truly the book he wanted written. its kinda like trying to say that i know better then he did. this is half the reason why all these religions out there are split up because certain people BELIEVE they know what is being said and what it meant and telling others that they are wrong if they believe diffrently. people need to just admit they dont know. believe in god if you wish to. but stop trying to believe that you know what he wanted or the way he felt.

its like the whole catholic priest pedophiles. most of them were known to have done it, instead of the archdiocese having these monsters arrested, they BELIEVED they new better and could handle it themselves because they were the all powerful. so they kept it to thereselves, moved the priests around to other areas and let other kids be molested all because they BELIEVED they were above the law.

to many people BELIEVE they know. and that is my problem with religion.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

sndsgood, I agree with you on the "religion" thing... I'm not a big fan of religion
either... trust me, a lot of stuff gets lost within different peoples views....

but as far as knowing things in the Bible to be true, it takes investigating,
translation, history lessons if you will... one of the things i found funny in
the movie was the paralell they tried making about the sun/son... the
funny thing is in hebrew(original language of the Bible) son/sun have no
relationship... just something i noticed right of the bat...

here's the thing, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die, to have a relationship,
to dwell within us... God is love... Jesus is the way... the new testament is clear
no matter what words are changed... we are sinners... we are going to hell...
we need to be saved some how... God sent His Son... if we accept the fact we
can't get to Heaven w/out Him, and ask for Him to save us, we will be saved...
thou and the and little word changes here and there don't change a message
so simple and yet so profound... Heaven and hell are real places... they might
not be up and down... but the fact still remains everyone has to go to one or the
other, sadly, even if you don't believe in it... eternity... it's a long time to have to
pay for an opinion...

To much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to beade to not "revise" their copyrighted edition. There you have it.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I think this thread needs some ST: