Many of you have probably heard of the upcoming revision of the NIV translation of the Bible. It will be released in 2011 and I believe it will be called the NIV 2011. The most recent revision of that translation has been the TNIV (or Today's New International Version). For some reason, it has been an extremely divisive translation of the Bible. For starters, it has tried to be as gender inclusive as possible. Another reason is that there may have been some people involved in the translation that were seen as having a liberal agenda. (I believe the ESV was inspired by the first reason, but I may be mistaken on this).
I have enjoyed the TNIV. I've been a big fan of the NIV and thought that the new revision was very good. The number one thing I liked about the TNIV was that it was the most readable of the major translations. I think that should be something that all translations strive for, being highly readable. I don't mind the gender inclusiveness, as some of the male titles/pronouns probably had a fuller meaning than just for men (see this post by Scot McKnight about the term alephos.)
I am not concerned with those on the committee for translation, because I know that there are some serious, conservative scholars on the team for the translation (including Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo and Craig Blomberg).
My main issue with both the TNIV and the NIV was the translation of "sarx" into "sinful nature" when talking about Christians. I do not believe regenerate Christians have a "sinful nature" but are still composed of "flesh" that has inherited sin patterns. (Doug Moo has written on this and I need to plow through that article).
I am excited to see what the committee comes up with in two years. It has the potential to be the best translation out there.
(McKnight's blog post is good just to be reminded on the importance of understanding the original languages before criticizing the work of translators).