It is sad to think that the best minds in the church today are so careless and unspiritual. But it seems clear that Dr. Moo and others are more interested in a resurge in profits than an upswing in Bible study and spirituality. Certainly people are "over" the initial infatuation with the newest English Bible translation, and are looking at other versions, so NIV sales have gone down for that reason. And certainly there are those who want a more liberal and especially gender-neutral translation, after 50 (or perhaps 80) years of radical feminism pervading the English speaking world.
But now these scholars have once again assumed that those of us who aren't hanging out in the ivory towers are unaware of their motives and uninterested in the esoteric subtleties of Scripture translation. So they are tinkering with words in the new 2010 version of the NIV, primarily (I am convinced) to bolster their profits and palliate those who would reinvent the roles of men and women according to the corrupted sensibilities of the vast majority in the 21st Century. This is a grave mistake on the part of Dr. Moo and his colleagues.
I find it not only strange but hypocritical that the International Bible Society, which owns the copyright of the NIV, is so sensitive to the change in its own direction that they felt they should rename themselves (now they are called Biblica) while the rather meaningful, but unnecessary, changes to the NIV did NOT, in their sensitive opinions, require the translation to be renamed. It surprised me when the Today's NIV (tNIV) came out. But it shocks me that they are introducing a new translation with the same name as an old one. This is hypocrisy and dishonesty of a glaring nature, particularly when they unveiled it on BibleGateway without any notice at all that it was a new version. And they call this "transparency", claiming it is even one of their goals in the new translation. I know they have not demonstrated transparency in the more important matter of doing business; I don't really know what transparency even means in terms of translation. Both matters are disturbing.
I used the word "unnecessary", and for this reason the NIV©2010 is all the more disturbing. For nearly 500 years, the King James version, with all its errors and ambiguities was sufficient for generations of English-speaking Christians. But Dr. Moo would have us believe that in 30 years since the original NIV, this translation has become "dated". It is an insult to our intelligence (we've come to expect this from arrogant liberal theologians.) Another disturbing problem.
The International Bible Society should do the RIGHT THING, not the profitable thing. After all, the Bible is the word of God, painstakingly translated by men who came to agreement in an honest attempt to really translate, not interpret the Scriptures. Update your tNIV if you like, and continue publishing that translation with (so called) minor changes. This we could accept. Of course, that translation never made you any money, perhaps now it will. But sirs, you are hindering the whole Church by your tinkering. And you are breaking your own promises. Think again! And do not change the NIV itself. You do not have the right, powerful and wise as you may be. Even owning the copyright, you do not have the right. It is not your book, it is His.
The RIGHT THING is what you have done in the past: Create a new translation with a new name. The New King James version did this. Everyone does this. They didn't revise the old version and give it the same name. That is dishonest, and you know it is (or used to), everyone knows it. Don't be so arrogant! What has happened to you? Did your stockholders pressure you to do such a fool thing? God have mercy on your souls.
No comments:
Post a Comment