The widely used New International Version is slated for an update in 2011, its first revision in 25 years. According to the press release:
“As time passes and English changes, the NIV we have at present is becoming increasingly dated. If we want a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to, and respect, the vocabulary they are using today.” . . . “The new 2011 NIV is all about maintaining and enhancing the original values of the NIV for today’s readers.” . . . “We’re looking for a translation that is above all accurate – that says what the original authors said in the way they would have said it had they been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today. We’re looking for a translation that offers clarity – where understanding comes naturally and readers can quickly grasp the original authors’ ideas and the cadence of their language. We’re looking for a translation that is suitable both for in-depth study and for outreach – a translation that Christians can share with their neighbors without hindrance whether they are experienced Bible readers or interested newcomers.
The press release does not detail what revisions can be expected, but the homepage at www.nivbible2011.com features a question and comment form for those who may wish to inquire further before additional details become more widely available.
HT: Zondervan
Its first revision in 25 years… apart from the last one? Are we just ignoring the disaster that was tNIV?
Good point, Ros. Despite the TNIV preface [“Today’s New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version (NIV)”], the press release from Tuesday seems to have a rather different perspective {e.g., “The global board of Biblica today announced its intention to update the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the first time it has been revised since 1984”; “Previous expressions [of the CBT’s work] included the 1978 and 1984 editions of the NIV and the 2005 TNIV”}. No doubt, at least to some extent, market forces influenced the rhetoric and hermeneutic at work in both cases, as Christianity Today’s article and the update announcement webcast also seem to suggest.