"Revised" HCSB Printed Texts Slated for 2010

This blog entry was originally posted on September 4, 2009 at the previous This Lamp location and has been moved here.

The information below is the sum of an email exchange I had this afternoon with Jeremy Howard at B&H Publishing. He unexpectedly (from my perspective) contacted me in regard to the post I wrote a year ago about the Disciples Study Bible revision in the works. Howard gave me permission to present the material below to readers of This Lamp.

First the bad news...

Evidently, we will not see the 2009 copyright Holman Christian Standard Bible in print this year as originally planned. It will be available beginning in 2010.

And the good news? I have a list of upcoming "2009 text" HCSB releases.

February, 2010: The Apologetics Study Bible for Students. This will mark the first "2009 text" HCSB in printed form. This Bible is edited by Sean McDowell, son of Josh McDowell. 



October, 2010: The HCSB Study Bible.



2013: The Disciples Study Bible will be published completely revised from the former edition with many new features and with numerous new contributors. It will probably be released under a different name.

Undoubtedly, other editions may fall in between those dates--especially before the 2013 release--as B&H Publishing transitions between the old and new texts.

A few notes:
(1) At this point, there are no plans by B&H Publishing to refer to the new edition of the HCSB as either "revised" or as a "second edition." I've used "2009 text" above for clarity, but that's merely my designation. Once the new editions are in print, the copyright page will be the primary way of determining the newer text.

(2) If you want to get a copy of the 2009 text HCSB right now, you may want to consider purchasing the text in WORDsearch where it is already availble:



I do not know of any other way to obtain the 2009 text HCSB as of this writing.

(3) On a personal note: in recent years, I’ve said that I recommended three different translations for primary Bibles: the HCSB, TNIV, and NLT. I felt those three translations provided a broad spectrum for Bible readers on numerous levels. With the events of this past week, I’m no longer recommending the TNIV, and I certainly don’t recommend the NIV as a primary Bible either as it is too dated.

I am still enthusiastic about the HCSB and NLT, however. The HCSB is, in my estimation, unsurpassed in technical accuracy above and beyond any translation on the market. And the NLT contains the most conversational English of any contemporary translation.

For anyone considering an alternative to the TNIV, I’d recommend looking at both the NET Bible and the NRSV as the TNIV fell somewhere in between these two.

Comments

[R. Mansfield]

Below are the original comments for this post relocated here. Please continue any further discussion at this location.

Joyce Miller
Joyce Miller
My choice is the HCSB...love it...I keep my NKJV nearby. As far as being "dated", how can our Lord's word ever be "dated"...I'm assuming you're referring to footnotes, visuals, etc. I hope these new interpretations are not coming out to quickly, resulting in possible errors to the original text. As far as which version is "best", I believe being led by the Holy Spirit, we will know which is best for each of our individual needs
December 3, 2009, 11:31:25 AM EST – Like – Reply

Jerry Weinhausen
Is there any chance that Holman will re-issue The Holman Illustrated Study Bible with the new updates? I kind of fancy it.
October 25, 2009, 5:44:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark O'Hearn
Thank you for your further comments Rick. You stated: "I also am worried that these revisions are coming at too fast of a pace." When I was a new believer enjoying the Scriptures for the first time, the KJV was the only translation known to me at the time. While my library now includes other versions, many Christians I fear have lost some valuables from the present state of affairs. Firstly, while intellectually one may understand the need for revision, it does undermine in some way the assurance that what they hold is the Word of God. Having insight in translation helps us understand some of the issues facing translators, yet some level of doubt and perhaps even frustration has arisen. Secondly, verse memorization is now almost impossible in my experience. This was not so when I only used one version. With revisions coming at us quicker and quicker are believers incline to invest in this important endeavour? Finally, Scriptures are becoming more of a commodity it seems. I will only speak for myself, but I can get more taken with the "next big thing in translation" than appreciating what resources are available here and now concerning God's Word. In short, I find the translation work nowadays becoming more of a distraction then a real help, which I do not believe is the intention of those involve in this important work. The flaw will always be the same - there will never be a perfectly translated English version, or if one could be produced, one that everyone accepts to be so. In the end, these wonderful translations are unintentionally just another source of division among the Body. Until He comes, I suspect to continue enjoying multiple versions and their revisions. Regards
September 29, 2009, 3:39:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Mark, I'm a 40-something believer myself (41 to be exact), and I, too, find the language in the NIV easy enough to understand. I also find language in much older Bibles easy enough to understand. But that's not the case with some of those who have come after us. Even the ESV has language more up to date in many places than the original NIV (compare Matt 11:16 in both, for instance). You state "if one is satisfied with the translation philosophy of the NIV, it remains a good version for at least general reading." Mark, I couldn't agree more and certainly don't intend to imply otherwise. While I appreciate the effort of translators to refine a translation to create the most accurate as possible text, I also am worried that these revisions are coming at too fast of a pace. Lots of folks will be content with the 78/84 NIV. And in the big picture, that's not so bad.
September 24, 2009, 4:57:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark O'Hearn
"I certainly don’t recommend the NIV as a primary Bible either as it is too dated." Though the version is now 26 years old, this 40-something believer still finds its language current enough to properly understand. I would respectfully suggest that the claims made by those involved in Bible translation are overzealous when it comes to the critical need to be constantly revising translations based solely upon up-to-date English. I realize others would disagree. Of course there are constant changes to the English language, though in my opinion many fall outside of formal language usage (such as slang). How much of this change is relevant to Biblical translation is questionable in any event. If one is satisfied with the translation philosophy of the NIV, it remains a good version for at least general reading. Certainly, I am looking forward its eventual revision, but again, I would respectfully suggest that in its current form it is still a very usable version for today's Bible reader. Regards
September 24, 2009, 4:23:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jerry Weinhausen
Does anybody know if Holman has approached BB Kirkbride about producing a Thompson Chain Reference Bible with the HCSB? What a solid combination that would make! Thanks.
September 16, 2009, 2:18:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Clay Knick
I've always loved the HCSB Psalter. I'm with you on the NLT Psalter. For me: NRSV, TNIV, REB, HCSB, NLT, RSV, & a few others here and there. I'm reading Robert Mounce's translation of John in my Bible reading right now.
September 15, 2009, 2:13:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

TC ROBINSON
Robert, you might be onto something there.
September 10, 2009, 5:47:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Robert Jimenez
TC, I am still going to use it as my primary text, and will continue to recommend it. Just because it is being revised I see no reason not to recommend it. When the NIV 2011 comes out I will be sure to let all of those people that I recommended the TNIV that it was updated and that they should consider getting the latest revision. I am confident that they will only improve the TNIV/NIV
September 10, 2009, 4:53:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

TC ROBINSON
Well, I'm gonna use the TNIV as my primary text, but not recommend it for the same reason you gave, Rick. But I'm still not a big fan of HCSB. Thanks for the notes.
September 10, 2009, 3:42:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
Since I've always considered the TNIV to be the latest update of the NIV (see also the foreword of the TNIV) I've never really believed they're phasing it out. They're just doing what they should have done in the first place. My only concern is what items (good and/or ill) get included in the process. NIV should have been regularly updated all along. At least every 6-8 years. As one reviewer commented: The TNIV is what the NIV should have been. My hope and prayer to G-d is that in 2011 I can say that the TNIV is what the NIV now is.
September 9, 2009, 3:13:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
I stand by my statements. As I understand it, Zondervan plans to "phase out" the TNIV -- which is only four years old(!) -- and rush the new NIV in its place. Of course, it might be that CBT decided on its own that the TNIV could be so improved that it needed to be phased out at an (unprecedented) accelerated schedule. But I just don't find that scenario plausible.
September 9, 2009, 1:48:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Scripture Zealot
FWIW I also believe (1) Moe Girkins was misquoted which as Peter noted CT corrected. Unfortunately WorldMag used CT misquotation and never really corrected it. I have all the details on my blog but that's off topic to this discussion. I would always give people the benefit of the doubt, especially those on the translation side. Speculation on the negative side probably doesn't "benefit whose who listen". Jeff Jeff
September 9, 2009, 1:17:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Larry, no one "regard[s] the TNIV a failure which must be replaced" - except perhaps Grudem and friends. The CT article originally quoted the Biblica man as saying this, and they were forced to retract with apologies as he was actually talking about NIV-I. As always CBT are prepared to consider any proposed changes, including to gender related matters. There is no evidence that marketing decisions are affecting their judgment.
September 9, 2009, 12:22:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
Larry: I don't know anything about the NIVi...but consider that most corporations with lots of money still run about a decade behind cutting-edge in their IT (i.e. Humana's Louisville datacenters) and replace by attrition or regulatory/business need. I think it is very feasible that an entire bible could be kept in something very like a source code repository and "built" on a daily basis for next-day review, etc. and all that entails. It's what I would do, but I'm a database geek. I agree with Rick that they most likely already knew what they were going to do...but there's naivete...and there's good strategy and tactics. If there was any real basis to the attacks on the NIV it might be different, but generating FUD in order to promote your own translation? As to deep discussion and such...my opinion is that it has already been done as they saw the political climate that some have drummed up. I simply hope that they have taken the high road and where their judgement was correct (in the TNIV) that will stand by their guns and if there were any errors or typos they will openly fix them and explain what happened. I really hope we get the TNIV in all its glory back in the NIV 2011. Just for giggles last night I went into both Hebrew and Greek in comparing a couple of passages across my usual translations (NASB, NRSV, NET, TNIV, NLT) and found the TNIV more agreeable with what I found. Actually I need to dust off my language books and do some review, but that's another story. So, that said, I think the opposition is really fighting G-d and we know where that will end.
September 9, 2009, 10:00:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Peter, you are undoubtedly correct. However, I think that wording for a decision that has been in development for at least many months gives a false impression. It would have been "transparent" for Girkins to have said: "We've had this in development for several months, and finally got buy off from our board ten days ago." That would have been transparent It is also says volumes about the lack of nimbleness of these large organizations and committees. Now, that is a problem endemic to committees -- so I can't fault the NIV crew here. But, it leads me to wonder how much deep discussion will actually occur in an unprecedented fast-track revision. This decision to make a rush major edition now, only 4 years after the release of the TNIV appears primarily driven by marketing concerns. CBT likes to present the image that it is fully independent and its decisions are driven by members' desires to produce the best translation consistent with their translation philosophies. But it just doesn't add up. Does the CBT regard the TNIV a failure which must be replaced -- or is that a marketing decision? Does the CBT think that it is best to consider (at least partly) rolling back on gender language -- or is that a marketing decision? I think it is clear what the most plausible answer to these questions is.
September 9, 2009, 9:08:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Larry, it is hardly "semantic games" to say that the board had only just made a final decision. Major joint projects like this take months of planning, including all the legal work involved. There was probably already months ago high level agreement in principle that this project would go ahead. But the formal decision at board level had to wait until the preparation was complete and the contracts were ready for signing - and until board members were home from vacation in late August. The public announcement had to wait for this formal decision. That is why, in response to a question about why the announcement was made at this particular time (if I remember correctly - CT omitted the question), Moe Girkins first talked about how much care was needed about it and then said "This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days."
September 9, 2009, 4:43:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Well, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything. But (1) we know from the word document that they were already writing a draft as recently as June; and (2) I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that there's not already a strong idea as to what this new Bible is going to look like. Perhaps not all the particulars are in place, but surely they have an idea where they're going.
September 9, 2009, 1:23:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Rick if you are right, then the statements attributed to Moo ("I can’t predict what will happen with gender usage. . . every one of those [gender decisions] is open for consideration") and Girkins ("Being as transparent as possible is part of that[;] this decision was made by the board in the last 10 days") are at best disingenuous.
September 9, 2009, 1:11:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
My hunch is that they already essentially know what the NIV '11 is going to look like. Certainly they're open to suggestions, but my guess is that they've already made up their mind about things like gender language, singular they, etc. Plus, it was already public knowledge that work was being done on a TNIV update. So my guess is that the new text--whatever it looks like--is mostly set. They can use 2010 and on into 2011 for test editions, proofreading, etc. and begin publishing toward the end of 2011.
September 9, 2009, 12:44:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Rick: Regarding the claim of transparency -- well, apparently, you caught IBS/Biblica in a fib. Because I gave the quote above from a Christianity Today article: "We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism." Now, the possibilities are: (1) Moe Girkins was misquoted (2) Moe Girkins lied to Christianity Today (3) Moe Girkins was playing semantic games (perhaps the new edition was being planned back in June, but they didn't take the final vote until two weeks ago.) But the bottom line is -- unless the Christianity Today article was badly off-base, Moe Girkins is not demonstrating a lot of forthrightness on this issue. (By the way -- assuming it is option #3 -- don't you think there is something fishy about the claim it will only take two years to finish the NIV2011 -- complete with test editions, proofreading, production time, etc -- when it takes nearly three months to approve the June 4th plan?) Darryl: If your theory is true, why did it take so long to produce to the TNIV after the NIVI was published in 1996? Why wasn't the process equally automated?
September 9, 2009, 12:29:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Larry, in regard to the first assertion: "(1) IBS/Zondervan are being "transparent" and have only decided in the last two weeks to produce a new version" was this something that they stated? That they had only decided in the last two weeks to produce a new version? Are you throwing this out as a hypothetical or is it an specific statement made by someone at Zondervan, Biblical or the CBT? If it was something said, it could not possibly be true based upon the MS Word document provided during the live webcast that I downloaded. Since it was publicly released, I'll drop a copy of it on my site and you can download it here: homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/docs/NIV2011_Release_FINAL.doc If you open that document, go to the file properties. There you will see in the title line "**DRAFT June 4, 2009**." Thus, if they were already beginning to draft an announcement three months earlier, this plan had already been in the works at least some time previous to that. And it certainly couldn't have been something thought up in the last two weeks. But again, I don't know if that's what you mean.
September 8, 2009, 7:07:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
Oops. Assuming the process they are using is fully automated, that is.
September 8, 2009, 6:34:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
1. Today...it could be said that a new version is "in the can" just about all the time. Comments from readers, scholars and such that have been received, evaluated and if valid are stuck in the pipeline, reviewed, voted on, edited, etc. through the process...then stored in the database pending a decision to release. Which could be made in oh...a day, or less if pushed. 2. The TNIV edits are probably flagged in the database...they would be in mine...so it's just a quick review, discussion, evaluate suggestions, edits, vote, loop through the pre-determined process and press "commit" on the final version. Gender changes are what? .3 of the 10% of the text changed...we're probably talking days or a couple weeks once the CBT gets up to speed. 3. See above. 4. See above. Assuming 1 million words, 3% needing review and given that the arguments should have been entered into the database and just need review rather than re-arguing, about 788 man...err...person-hours of work with how many members in CBT? 10? 79 hours - two weeks for basic review with say another eight weeks for discussions about changes...and since many changes may be determined by "business rules" probably less time than that.
September 8, 2009, 6:32:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
I find no way to reconcile the following assertions: (1) IBS/Zondervan are being "transparent" and have only decided in the last two weeks to produce a new version. (2) CBT has not yet decided how to address changes in the NIV/TNIV. ("I can’t predict what will happen with gender usage. My guess would be we made a lot of the right decisions for the T-NIV but every one of those is open for consideration. We may even be returning to what we had in the 1984 NIV.") (3) CBT will look at each case independently. (See quote above). (4) CBT will finish all this, with sufficient time for book production, etc. by 2011. Based on my experiences with publishing and committee work, at least one of these statements is not correct. Either someone is being dishonest, or they are being wildly optimistic. This is doubly true if one produces preliminary versions for testing and comment.
September 8, 2009, 6:15:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Darryl, the CBT has promised to consider comments made up to the end of this year. I think we should assume that they intend to abide by this promise, and that the lead times for the printers have been set appropriately.
September 8, 2009, 6:14:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
I'm sure they have the updates and proposed changes in the database already...depending on the necessary lead time for the printers to have it ready on time it is just a matter of committing the final changes they want and have the time to make to the database's "version xx.yy.zz" branch and sending it to the printers. Gender-accurate? -neutral? What is in the Hebrew/Greek? Translate that...explicitly...to _modern_ mainstream American English, only taking into consideration the context/most-likely-audience and let the fallout fall where it may...requiring a 75-100% majority vote to over-ride. If it is Messianic but not explicitly so-just "understood" to be so, put that in a note. Otherwise you are...like another church I am intimately familiar with, preaching the high value of the magisterium rather than the scriptures.
September 8, 2009, 5:28:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Larry, bear in mind that the CBT has already been working on revisions to TNIV. Some but only a minority of their revisions were made in a minor update to TNIV last year. Presumably the rest of their agreed revisions will be in the 2011 update. Otherwise I guess they will only look at and consider changes to places which are specifically pointed out to them by commenters. But in practice they have probably done most of the work already. What is new is not the version, but Zondervan's decision to publish it, and (at least this is how I understood the webcast) over about two years to replace all of their NIV and TNIV speciality Bibles with new versions with the updated text.
September 8, 2009, 4:46:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
No, I think the timing is suspicious. First, they just started this revision, according to their statements: "We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism." It took 13 years for (1965-1978) for the first full edition NIV to appear. It is a bit harder to date the gestation period for the TNIV -- but it seems based on this article that work began around 1999 and the first full edition appeared in 2005. In contrast, this new version will appear in only 2 years. This is consistent with a minor revision of the TNIV that simply reviews the "controversial" sections (which is consistent with Doug Moo's quote in the original (not the updated)USA Today story: "I can’t predict what will happen with gender usage. My guess would be we made a lot of the right decisions for the T-NIV but every one of those is open for consideration. We may even be returning to what we had in the 1984 NIV." A full revision, that considered every verse would appear to be, given the past history of the CBT, much more time consuming.
September 8, 2009, 3:18:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
It could simply be that the CBT were considering an update (i.e. the NET bible is on a 5-year refresh cycle) and told them yes, we can do an update to help you out. Agree that Zondervan messed up, it may even be salvageable...we shall see. Alienate Evangelical opinion-makers? Chittering little things that, in my opinion, are fighting G-d. More translations? Well, yeah, till you delete the bad ones, the old ones, the unintelligible ones, the sectarian ones, the.... And so on. Yes, Zondervan will need to make an excellent marketing campaign to educate the potential users. If you want both concordant and literary (and you should) that is up-to-date, your choices are limited: NET, TNIV.
September 8, 2009, 1:46:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Larry, I agree with your interpretation of what Rick has done, but he has denied it. But I don't agree with your opinion (a) as there is no evidence for it. CBT has been updating the NIV line regularly since 1978 (1984, 1996 NIV-I, 2001/2005 TNIV, 2008 minor changes to TNIV). I guess they would have done so more often if offered funding for their work. They have said that they have more changes currently in the pipeline as well as new ones which they will consider. So they are continuing to work as they always have. But they have said nothing to throw any doubt on the independence of their decision making.
September 8, 2009, 1:33:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Peter: I really think you need to keep banging the drum that your reason for no longer recommending TNIV is nothing to do with your prediction for the future But Rick is depending on a prediction. What Zondervan actually said was "we won't be developing any new products using the TNIV after the NIV2011 is established." Rick's prediction is that the TNIV will be phased out rather quickly. I'm not certain whether Rick's prediction will become true (I think the NIV84 will be around for a long, long, long time from many publishers, including Zondervan; and I think to a lesser degree, the TNIV will be around in some for for a long, long time.) My opinions: (a) this incident shows that the supposed wall of independence around the CBT is rather porous; this decision was obviously made for marketing reasons (as was the decision to rush to produce a new translation much faster than the CBT has ever done before). (b) Zondervan has so fumbled this issue (including its announcement last week) that it will continue to lose market share. (c) It is much more dangerous for a Bible translation to alienate large sections of Evangelical opinion-makers since there are far more translations available than there were in 1978. However, I must say that the continual series of blunder and bluster have made for a very entertaining show.
September 8, 2009, 1:23:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
I'd much rather have heard something like: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I change the dot of even one 'i' or the cross of any 't' in the TNIV while re-branding it as the NIV!” They can do any updates later. Just keep it where it is...or make it more literal if possible while retaining readability/accuracy. Just keep verbs and tenses and genders accurate and in context - as it is written, not as it is interpreted. Deal with interpretations like the NET bible did...with footnotes. This reformed Catholic/Southern Baptist has no problems using or recommending the Type 1 NASB95 or NRSV, or the Type 2 NET or TNIV. Unfortunately, NLT is Type 3/4 so it can never be a primary. My public-facing version was NIV, is now TNIV and if the CBT backs down from the standard set by the TNIV I could stick with the old NIV as long as most everyone else does...or move to NRSV unless the NET catches on.
September 8, 2009, 12:41:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Rick, thank you for the explanation. I really think you need to keep banging the drum that your reason for no longer recommending TNIV is nothing to do with your prediction for the future, because this seems so counter-intuitive in the context of how you withdrew your recommendation so immediately after the announcement of the NIV update.
September 8, 2009, 11:26:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Peter, I have not done what you accuse me of doing. You've completely misread me (again). My predictions about the 2011 NIV have not caused me to do anything in regard to the TNIV. These are two separate issues. In fact, I really didn't make any kind of value judgment on my predictions. I simply stated what I believe will happen. I didn't really say whether these results would be good or bad. What I did say in the notes section of the post is that I would not continue to recommend the TNIV as a primary BIble. I would not discourage its use in general, though; and I will continue to use it myself. I thought I had explained this in the comments above where Larry asked about it. All this means is that if someone were to come up to me, say at church, telling me that he or she was in the market for a new Bible and wondering what to get (something that happens every now and then), I simply wouldn't include the TNIV in the list of Bibles I recommend for primary use. What's primary use? By that I mean a Bible that one wants to use for a decade or more, memorize, read from, carry to church, find other resources that use the same translation. Why would I not recommend the TNIV any longer? Well, it has NOTHING to do with the content of the TNIV. Nor does it have anything to do with the potential of the NIV 2011. Rather, it's simply because the TNIV is a translation that has been given an end of life status. In that regard, it's very much like the Good News Translation which I included in my top ten list. I still like the GNT. If someone says to me that they want a top ten list of Bible (actually, no one's ever asked me for that), I'd probably include it because I like it (I even like the pictures). But I don't recommend it as a primary Bible. [Granted, the GNT is not quite end of life, but it's all but forgotten, and will slowly fade away.] And as discussed with Larry, yes, I also affirm reading multiple Bibles in parallel, but realistically, the average person in church doesn't do this. And the average person tends to keep one Bible for primary use for a very long time. On a separate note, I'm not suggesting that anyone at Zondervan was trying to go back on their word. I'm not suggesting that. The conversations I had were of a different nature than what you are inferring. I can simply say no more. There are always "factions" within a company and decisions that have to be made. In the end, an outcome was determined that was different than the possibilities of what had been discussed in some of the conversations I was involved in. I don't feel that anyone has gone back on his or her word. Rather, a third direction was taken. As for waiting for the actual text to be published, that's exactly what I'm doing. And I'll evaluate the 2011 NIV on its on merits then.
September 8, 2009, 8:31:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Rick, I think you have made assumptions, or "predictions", your word, about what the NIV update will look like, and have acted on them prematurely. It also seems that what you consider "realistic and reasonable" contrasts with what you were told when you were "privy to conversations". This suggests that you are predicting that people are going to go back on their word, without having any hard evidence that this is their intention. I do not consider this a proper prediction to make. It would be better to wait for the actual text to be published. Then we will see if anyone actually has gone back on their word, or if they are, as I believe, honourable Christians trying to do their best in a difficult situation - and preparing to honour any commitment to put their marketing efforts into TNIV by doing this with a lightly modified TNIV text rebranded as the NIV 2011 update.
September 8, 2009, 4:39:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Jordan
NEt bible review? NRSV seems to be the new TNIV for people!
September 8, 2009, 12:46:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Darryl Rowe
Aye...now if there was a way I could get my PocketBible TNIV into WordSearch.... As it is I will hope that when finances get better the TNIV is still available in Bible Works along with the other versions I use regularly. I am unsure what WS's problem was with the TNIV, but most of what I have in WS5-8 is in BW, so maybe it is time to switch. Won't touch HCSB. The anti-TNIV crowd has pushed my button: if the TNIV is not wholly resurrected in the NIV 2011 or with only textual updates and typo correction type of things...I'll replace it with the NRSV.
September 7, 2009, 11:34:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Brad Stephenson
Rick, Thanks for HCSB updates. I prefer the HCSB, but the lack of multiple, high quality platforms as compared to ESV and others - websites, quality audio version dramatized (like the new NKJV Word of Promise), and the painfully slow release of the revision are frustrating. One would think that B&H/Lifeway etc. would have resources to exceed esp. Crossway in offerings etc. Do you have any insight from your conversations with B&H? Thanks
September 7, 2009, 10:02:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Larry, I always held out hope...no I always assumed that Zondervan would eventually turn the corner on the TNIV. I was also privy to conversations that I cannot discuss here. That have me hope and fueled my assumptions. I suppose in hindsight, I was naïve. Again, I'm not suggesting anyone stop using the TNIV. I'm not going to stop using it. I'm just not going to recommend it as a primary Bible for someone looking for a new Bible. Also, as I've often mention, I highly encourage the use of multiple translations that cross the spectrum for personal study. Below is a screenshot from Accordance I still had up for preparing for yesterday: http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/assets/misc/psalm19.jpg I can recommend that kind of study, but the average person in my church won't do that. They want one primary Bible to carry with them. It would make no sense for me to recommend the TNIV as that kind of Bible now. For me personally, a primary Bible is the one that I grab most often, teach from most often. I haven't really had one of those exclusively since the NASB. _____________________________________________________________________________ Peter, in regard to what exactly, do you think I've jumped the gun? I haven't abandoned the TNIV; nor have I stopped using it. And I certainly haven't responded in any manner based upon "worst fears" about the 2011 NIV. I made a few predictions about it--which I believe were all realistic and reasonable--but none of those were based on "worst fears." _____________________________________________________________________________ Jay,, I'll continue to use the TNIV, NLT, HCSB and occasionally the NET Bible just as I've been doing in recent years. The key is to know your audience and purpose. Right now at church, I'm teaching a study on the Psalms for 13 weeks. I simply can't use the NLT for that because too many metaphors are flattened. The NLT, in my opinion, works best in narrative passages. For Psalms, I may go back and forth between TNIV and HCSB. I like the NET BIble a lot, but I've never met another person who had one unless I gave it to him. However, if a group could be persuaded to use the NET Bible, I believe it could be a very rewarding experience.
September 7, 2009, 6:20:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Sue
Peter, I hope I am wrong. I don't use the TNIV myself much but my children do, since their cohort still uses the NIV.
September 7, 2009, 9:39:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Jay Davis
Rick: Until the 2011 NIV comes out - what will you use most of the time for teaching? How would you rate these versions NET, HCSB, NLT - for teachers/preachers The NET is okay but not many congregational users The same with HCSB in our church Most in the church I am at use NIV or NLT - a few may have TNIV, NKJV or another version but it may be only 1 percent or so for each other version. It seems to fall like this: NIV 60 percent and NLT 40 percent possibly... The other 10 percent is a combination of other versions Currently I am using NLT but was using TNIV until maybe 2 months ago I think it is more difficult these days with so many translations for expositors. Take for example Revelation 3 - a word by word or verse by verse study means one version says "spit" another version says "vomit". Explaining the words and then explaining the different versions can get a person bogged down or sidetracked from the message of the letter to Laodecia. I like the various translations - all of them have weak areas and strong areas so it is often a trade off which ever version you choose. Jay
September 7, 2009, 8:42:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Did the TNIV ever enjoy success as a pew Bible? I was under the impression the answer was no. Some in this thread are dancing a bit around another possible reason for withdrawing a recommendation for the TNIV -- an attempt to punish Zondervan/IBS through a boycott. This is the tactic used by the TNIV-opponents, apparently to great success, and I am puzzled by why TNIV-supporters would use it, since it at best only gives the appearance of amplifying the apparent success of the anti-TNIV party.
September 7, 2009, 5:53:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Sue, if you are right (and I don't think you are) I will immediately drop any support for the NIV camp, condemn their decision, and switch probably to NLT. But, unlike Rick, I would prefer to wait until we see what the update looks like, rather than jump the gun based on our worst fears about it.
September 7, 2009, 5:36:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Sue
Although the TNIV may remain available to the individual as a collector's item, it will hardly appeal to someone shopping for a pew Bible. The NIV is still a pew Bible in many churches that will never buy the NRSV. I too suspect that the NIV 2011 will not maintain the gender accurate language of the TNIV. There are many places which have no pronoun in Greek and English requires one. I think we may see a return of the masculine generic pronoun and a continuation of preachers who believe that this refers exclusively to men. The way I often hear it in sermons now, if it refers to eternal salvation women are included, otherwise not so much.
September 6, 2009, 11:19:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
Perhaps I confused the two categories, although it does not seem to be an exceptional inference that indicating that a book is a favorite is a form of recommendation. But you didn't respond to my other points. In particular, the TNIV was and is available mostly in crappy editions (purely from a book design point of view, I include the TNIV Reference Bible in that category), and that seems to be the case going forward (as I mention above, I think the TNIV will available for quite some time). If your previous recommendation was based not purely on the translation itself but also on the availability of varied editions, was your previous recommendation of the TNIV based merely on the possibility that nice editions would be forthcoming? I notice that books that seem to have "legs" in the Bible publishing world, remaining consistent sellers (NRSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, The Message) all have some special feature that distinguishes them from others in the marketplace. In contrast, the translations you mention are more interchangeable -- e.g., the HCSB was designed as a NIV-killer specifically to enable Holman to avoid paying royalties to Zondervan/IBS. The NLT competes directly with a variety of easy-reading translations such as the CEV, GNB-TEV, etc. I think that a reader would get much more from reading several translations that use more varied approaches than translations that tend to be more similar. In particular, I doubt very much the marginal improvement of the NIV-un-un over the TNIV will be particularly large (especially seeing that it is being rushed into production.)
September 6, 2009, 2:34:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Larry, I think you've confused my category of favorite translations and what I recommend as primary Bibles. For the record, I don't recommend Wycliffe or the MLB as primary Bibles either and never have. I think I'm being pretty consistent here.
September 6, 2009, 9:50:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
Larry, I don't think Zondervan and Biblica have much to gain by capitulating to pressure from the TNIV opponents. Those people have already lost confidence in the NIV camp and are strongly promoting ESV. There is probably no way they can be persuaded to back a revised NIV, even if it comes out as a clone of ESV. But Zondervan and Biblica would manage to lose ALL of their support from the TNIV supporters, and the market to go with it. They would have no friends left at all. I don't think they would take that risk.
September 6, 2009, 4:43:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Larry
I don't know Rick, it sounds a bit ridiculous to withdraw your recommendation of a Bible translation you previously recommended because of publishing decisions. First, as I understand it, Zondervan is saying it won't develop any new products with the TNIV. That's a bit different than saying all the TNIV's in stock will be destroyed in 2011. You've mentioned that you think The Bible Experience will stay in print, and I suspect that its Companion Bible will also stay in print. Second, the Wycliffe New Testament made your top ten bible versions and while that is in print, it is a much harder catch than the TNIV. The Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley Version) made your list and that is (to the best of my knowledge) out of print. Good luck getting a wide-margin editions of those picks! Third, I would argue that more many readers, electronic editions are now the most important. I think this is true of you (you are a strong advocate of Accordance) and I expect that the TNIV will continue to be available on all the major software platforms. Fourth, I know you sometimes buy Bibles on the used market, and here, the TNIV will continue to be plentiful for a long, long time. (As you know, the New English Bible is still moderately influential -- being often cited by both professional scholars and bloggers and that is barely in print.) Fifth, it seems to me a bit out of date to say "A primary Bible in my mind is something that someone wants to use over the long haul." Now you are not that old -- by the grace of God, you may 40 or more years left. Do you imagine that any of the current popular Evangelical Bibles will have that sort of lifetime? (Of course, the NRSV had that sort of lifetime -- but that was before the age of rapid updates to Bible -- note that the new NIV is being rushed out in 2 years. Also the NRSV filled a particular niche -- ecumenical and scholarly -- that none of the modern contemporary Bibles has tried to address. On the other hand, the Evangelical market is saturated with translations with many more in development.) Sixth, as you yourself have pointed out many, many times -- it is not as if plenty of exciting TNIV editions were in the works before. Zondervan clearly had a limited commitment to the TNIV from the start. Now, if your dog Bessie came down with some horrible canine disease (God forbid!) and the vet said she only had a year left -- would that dim your affection for the dog? Of course, this an inexact analogy -- because your copies of your TNIV will likely survive you -- they won't disappear in a year. Whatever merits or demerits that TNIV had last week as a translation, it has this week as well. Now, my prediction is that the NIV-un-un will be much closer to NIV than the TNIV in translation philosophy. (Why? Because, frankly, the TNIV-opponents have shown that they are much more capable of flexing their marketplace muscles than the TNIV-advocates -- so IBS and Zondervan have much more to lose by offending them.) But -- we'll have to wait and see. (By the way, I think it will prove to be a poor marketing decision to link the NIV-un-un to the KJV's anniversary -- I think in 2011, everyone will be pushing special KJV editions and talking about how what was once a nearly universal Protestant translation in English has been replaced by a wide diversity of translations. [The fact that the KJV was controversial and reviled for its first 30 years of existence may not get as much play.] And, of course, the way that Zondervan and IBS hav announced their decision has managed to make both TNIV-advocates and opponents suspicious of the NIV-un-un.)
September 6, 2009, 4:26:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Lowell
I have a copy of the HCSB that I use as a secondary translation to consult when doing a more in-depth study of a passage. It is not my primary translation for a number of reasons, the most important one being that their use of gender accurate language is restricted by adopting the "Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture, revised Sept. 9, 1997 (as stated in the Introduction to the HCSB, p. xii, copyright 2004 by Holman Bible Publishers). The statement of gender language policy in the HCSB's introduction seems to me to be a thinly veiled attack against more comprehensive gender accurate translation policies such as that practiced by the CBT in producing the TNIV. I will present the text of the HCSB gender policy so that others can form their own opinions as to the tone and meaning behind the policy. It reads as follows: Some people today ignore the Bible's teachings on distinctive roles of men and women in family and church and have an agenda to eliminate those distinctions in every arena of life. These people have begun a program to engineer the removal of a perceived male bias in the English language. The targets of this program have been such traditional linguistic practices as the generic use of "man" or "men," as well as "he," "him," and "his." [omitted paragraph describing above mentioned adoption of Guidelines.] The goal of the HCSB translators has not been to promote a cultural ideology but to faithfully translate the Bible. While the HCSB avoids using "man" or "he" unnecessarily, the translation does not restructure sentences to avoid them when they are in the text. For example, HCSB translators have not changed "him" to "you" or to "them," neither have they avoided other masculine words such as "father" or "son" by translating them in generic terms such as "parent" or "child." To my ears it sounds like anyone who does not follow the Guidelines -such as the TNIV- is no longer faithfully translating the Bible. It also appears that the HCSB is calling into question the motives of those who follow a more comprehensive gender policy and attributing negative agendas to them. I can appreciate the fact that there are people who desire a more traditional translation of gender terms and I myself like to use such a translation in my broader studies. I also appreciate an up front statement of the translation policy used in producing a given version, but I think that to attribute base motives to those who do not follow your translation policy is stepping past the bounds of Christian charity. I would also like to present the text of the TNIV gender policy as found in "A Word to the Reader," p. xi, copyright 2001, 2005 by The Zondervan Corporation. Although the basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV are the removal of nearly all vocative "O"s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns. Relative to the second of these, the so-called singular "they/their/them," which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom, has been employed to fill the vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, "anyone" or "everyone" or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent or such pronouns. While the TNIV translators admit that there are diverse cultural forces that are bringing about changes in the use of English, I feel that the HCSB goes beyond the bounds of propriety to attribute such changes to a single cultural ideology that is bent on eliminating all gender distinctions between men and women. The second reason the HCSB is not my primary Bible is its usage of capitalization in pronouns referring to God and Jesus. Although intended to emphasize the deity of Christ, such usage can be problematic in such instances as Matthew 12:38 where the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." (HCSB). The capitalized "You" implies that they believe Jesus to be divine, when, of course, that is definitely not the case. This policy of capitalization also causes difficulty in the "Messianic" psalms such as Psalm 2:7, "I will declare the Lord's decree: He said to Me, "You are My Son; today I have become Your Father." The use of capitalization implies that Jesus is the sole referent of the Psalm, ruling out the possibility that in its original historical context the Psalm may have been used as an enthronement psalm directed to the newly anointed king. (To give credit, in this instance the HCSB does footnote a translation without capitals). It would be best in my view to leave all pronouns in the lowercase. A minor point of style concerns the usage of bold print for OT passages quoted in the NT, which I feel may put too much emphasis on the quote and set it apart from its context more than needed.
September 6, 2009, 1:43:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
I don't think it's a privileged position, Peter, but I do have a copy of the 09 HCSB in Wordsearch.
September 5, 2009, 10:52:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
OK, Rick, I see what you mean, although I do things differently. But surely you should similarly be "no longer recommending the [HCSB] as a primary Bible" because of these upcoming changes. But perhaps the difference is that you are in the privileged position of knowing what those changes will be.
September 5, 2009, 10:25:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Peter, you've misread my intentions. I'm not rejecting the TNIV. In fact, I'll continue to use it until the 2011 NIV appears and at that time, I'll evaluate the 2011 NIV. And I certainly have nothing to do with the idea of revisions. Revisions are fine and necessary. I'm simply no longer recommending the TNIV as a primary Bible because it is being discontinued. A primary Bible in my mind is something that someone wants to use over the long haul. A person wants to memorize its particular renderings and find other materials that are based on it. A person might want to get multiple copies of a particular translation for different purposes. To me, the TNIV no longer has this kind of future. Now, I'm assuming that the 2011 NIV will be closer in nature to the TNIV than the 1984 NIV, so there's nothing wrong with someone continuing to use the TNIV in anticipation of the 2011 NIV>
September 5, 2009, 9:01:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Peter Kirk
If you are rejecting TNIV because of the prospect of a revision in 2011, to be consistent shouldn't you reject HCSB because of the prospect of a revision in 2010? Kevin, TNIV is not going to be killed, just revised a bit and rebranded NIV 2011 update. At least that's how I understand what the partners have said.
September 5, 2009, 6:52:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply

ElShaddai Edwards
As one coming from years with the NASB, the HCSB has been very palatable. I've found it very easy to use in a NIV church setting, almost as easy as the TNIV - I think it's perfect for anyone who wants "modern English" (vs. the "traditional English" of the ESV/KJV), but with a little more technical Bible terminology than the NIV. There are a few clunker passages, but overall I think it's well executed. As much as I still have affection for the NEB/REB line, the HCSB and NLT remain my primary recommendations to others.
September 5, 2009, 6:22:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Robert Jimenez
Rick, I will continue using the TNIV, and will continue to recommend it. My hope is that the NIV 2011 will be similar enough to the TNIV and hopefully the transition will be easier than going from NIV to NIV 2011. After all the TNIV is a revision of the NIV. I have at least 3 hard copies of the HCSB, and also the 2009 wordsearch version. Overall I prefer the TNIV over the HCSB - that is just my personal preference. Although I do use the HCSB as my second reference for study, and the NLT. I stick with those 3 translations and feel confident that I am getting the best in modern scholarship.
September 5, 2009, 2:22:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
I was personally told by Blum himself last year at ETS that it would be released by September, 2009. But alas, schedules slip and I think that with the economy the way it is, all publishers are moving a bit slower these days. Had the economy not tanked, I believe we would have probably seen it this month. I've got the Wordsearch text, but for me, it's easier to evaluate when I have a physical copy in hand.
September 5, 2009, 12:43:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Kevin Grady
I have the TNIV, the HCSB as well as NLT and ESV. I am now looking at the HCSB to see how I like it since the TNIV is going to be killed. Thanks for your insight and update. Your the first one to say it will not be out until 2010. Everyone else said it would be 2009.
September 5, 2009, 12:32:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Scripture Zealot
I am still enthusiastic about the HCSB and NLT, however. The HCSB is, in my estimation, unsurpassed in technical accuracy above and beyond any translation on the market. And the NLT contains the most conversational English of any contemporary translation. Nice to have someone else of the same opinion but more learned than me. I've got NRSV in third and TNIV in fourth. Jeff
September 4, 2009, 11:52:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
There's no sense in recommending the TNIV if it's not going to be around and if new editions will never be available. I'll still personally use it, but it's no longer on my recommend list. By the way, Kevin, you should give the HCSB a closer look.
September 4, 2009, 11:20:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Kevin Sam
I am glad there is someone else who feels the same about not recommending the TNIV as a primary bible. I have never really been a fan of the HCSB and I've never been too excited about it.
September 4, 2009, 11:02:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Social Networking by Echo

[J. Wright]

Any follow-up news on the possibility of a re-print of the Disciple's Study Bible? I've contacted B & H and haven't heard anything definitive, so I thought perhaps you've heard something? Thanks for always keeping your readers up to date on great stuff!