I just saw an article that the very popular New International Version (NIV) will be revised. Based on the article, the translating committee recogized some of the problems that arose from the TNIV which opened a virtual hornet’s nest of heated debate.
Will a new, updated NIV be acceptable? It may very well be. However, it may be troublesome. I suspect that debate will rage among conservative evangelicals. Some will argue that anything short of a literal translation is unacceptable and maybe even tantamount to changing Scripture. Others will argue that updating antiquated English terms is a necessary step in maintaining accuracy. Another group will argue that literal is incomprehensible, only a strongly dynamically equivalent translation will suffice.
And so goes the debate of translational processes.
I will reserve judgment on the upcoming new NIV until it comes out. I would also caution regarding those who are absolutely for and absolutely against a new version, especially before it is published.
This pastor believes there is nothing wrong with updating the English language. The widely popular “literal” version NASB did just that. Translators went and developed the NKJV (less a cleanup and more a re-doing of the KJV) so people can have what is essentially an updated KJV. Both the NKJV and updated NASB are accepted. I pray that the new NIV will also be acceptable. I also pray that scholars heed the advice of Paul and Augustine: don’t get so wrapped up in arguing the finest details of words and letters and thus overlook the big picture of what the words and letters say about God.
