|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 2:06:15 PM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 18
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
So, what is the general opinion of the TNIV translation of the Bible?
I recently bought a paperback copy at the local bookstore and like it fairly well. It seems more literal and formal than the NLT while maybe a little easier to read than the NIV.
I discussed this with some friends and they acted like the TNIV was the “Devil’s scripture” or something. These are not KJVO folks, but people who use NIV, NLT and other modern translations.
It appears that their problem with the TNIV has to do with some business deals the copyright holder entered into and then reneged on. Apparently this created some bad feelings among many conservative leaders and they have apparently “blackballed” the TNIV. It seems that this had something to do with gender neutral language, but I do not know all the details. However, this seems strange since the NLT and even the ESV utilize some level of “gender accurate” language.
So, am I missing something? The TNIV seems comparable to the NIV / NLT which are cautiously accepted by most conservative evangelicals. Why is the TNIV different? Were there some unethical business practices and if so should it matter to me?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 2:19:50 PM
|
|
|
PrincessButtercup
Posts: 9814
Joined: 4/21/2007
From: not my home...
Status: offline
|
The only thing I've heard bad about the TNIV is the gender neutrality factor. In many passages where the word "son" is used in other translations, "children" is used here. When you read the Bible, keeping in mind the culture in which it was written, there is significant meaning in using the word "son". But this version takes away that significance.
ETA: And some people, including me, see it as tampering with the Word of God by taking away from it.
< Message edited by Mandicoot -- 6/16/2008 2:37:11 PM >
_____________________________
I need you more than anyone, darlin'
You know that I have from the start
So build me up, Buttercup, don't break my heart...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 3:13:56 PM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 18
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes, I understand the gender neutral debate, and as an old school NASB user it does give me pause. My main interest is in the fact that I would like to give copies of the TNIV away as evangelistic tools. The local bookstore sells cases of pretty nice paperback TNIVs for a very good price.
So, I am still a little unsure why the TNIV seems to be rejected when other gender neutral works such as the NLT seem to be accepted. Maybe it is simply the gender neutral issue, and some people are accepting one version while rejecting another. This does not make sense, but we as flawed individuals seldom do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 3:19:59 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 234
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I think the largest opposition comes from the folks who believe women should not have any leadership positions in the church. They, as well as others, were concerned about the trend towards neutral language in terms of gender.
Some websites hosted webpages denouncing that kind of translation, and particularly a new edition to be put out by the people who produced the NIV. There was a lot of inaccurate information in those websites, claiming that these translations were taking away the masculinity of God, etc.
Perhaps at the prompting of these groups, James Dobson hosted a meeting to discuss the issue. Personally, it is my opinion - and just an opinion - that the purpose was to coerce the NIV committee to not release an update to the NIV. I've read everything I could on what happened at that meeting. And this is why I believe they were trying to coerce the NIV committee. They did not seem to be interested in hearing both sides. There were representatives from "women be silent people" (I can't think of the name for their group, sorry), but I don't recall seeing representatives from missionary Bible translation groups or representatives who are experts in the Biblical languages - beyond those who have the slant I already mentioned. It was also very interesting to me that other translation committees from NLT etc were not invited. The two NIV men invited were members of the committee, but not officials of the committee, the chairman and the vice chair were not invited. From the reading I did, I gathered that they invited the members of the committee who they thought were sympathetic to the "women be silent" theology.
The men signed the agreement, and very shortly after the agreement was announced, the chairman of the NIV committee announced that the committee would not be bound by that agreement. Even so, they did what they could to stand by the agreement. They made the decision to not update the NIV itself - which is what the agreement was - and that they would make a new translation - the TNIV.
Usually when a translation is updated - the older version does not continue to be published. Try to find a pre-1995 version of the NASB on the shelves of your local Christian bookstore. But, the NIV continues to be published because of this agreement.
So, you can decide, if you wish, that the integrity of the NIV committee is lacking and broke the agreement. However, I think that the group that Dobson called together was also lacking in integrity because they did not care to thoroughly investigate both sides of the issue and let everyone be heard.
I believe there are legitimate reasons for using neutral language. When I checked into it for myself, I discovered that the Bible, in the original languages, uses a lot more neutral language than I had ever realized. But, it needs to be done carefully, and we need to make sure we don't ever go down that slippery slope to where God is not portrayed as masculine.
Another fact I remembered from my research on this, is that at one time there was some document passed around where well-known Christians were asked to sign that they stood against the TNIV. Some apparantly signed without fully knowing what they were signing because some of those have spoken in favor of other gender neutral translations, and I think I remember that some later came out and said they misunderstood what that promotion was about. They thought they were taking a stand against a truly feminist bible.
So, some of your friends may not really know what they are talking about. They may have read some of those websites where the information was not totally accurate. You'll have to make the decision for yourself, but make sure it is an informed one. Don't make it based on the false charges that it is a feminist bible.
BTW, the TNIV says that women should be silent in the church! If it were a feminist bible, they would have changed that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 3:27:26 PM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 18
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Phyl2-
Thanks for the feedback it does clarify a little bit. I suspect the TNIV may be appropriate for my initial purpose. However, I may do a little more research, comparison, and prayer before I proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 3:30:41 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 234
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I think that's wise.
But, I might put it in the order of prayer, research and comparison! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 6/16/2008 5:52:00 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2102
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: online
|
Phyl2 is pretty much right. Add to that skirmish the fact that the TNIV is a translation while the NLT is a paraphrase. Translations are, and should be, held to a higher standard and get greater scrutiny. The TNIV has it's uses, particularly if one is looking at gender issues and don't necessarily want to get all tied up in the greek.
The basic disagreement between the TNIV committee and Dobson et al hinged on the issue of how best to translate non-gender neutral words (like "he" or "hers") that are used in gender neutral ways. Example: "Man does not live by bread alone." Man in this sense is gender neutral and is more accurately translated "mankind" since a woman is just as likely as a man to need more than bread for spiritual sustenance.
Both sides agreed that where the original text used a masculine (or feminine) word and intended a masculine (or feminine) meaning, then those words should be translated using masculine (or feminine) english equivalents.
The issue is what to do with a sentence like "The wise man listens to the counsel of his elders" (Not a biblical quote here, just an example) or the example I gave above.
Clearly the intent is not to restrict the meaning of that sentence to men. Obviously it would apply equally to women. The Dobson group would have wanted this translated by retaining the original masculine gender. Initially the TNIV committee agreed to this restriction but as time went on and they got deeper into the project, they ran across instances where they felt that this rule did not adequately express the original writer's intent in the bible. As a result, they felt they needed to backtrack from their original commitment. This led to quite a little spat between Dobson's group and the committee. Generally, I think the committee did a reasonably good job of preserving the original intent of the biblical writers while expressing that intent in a gender-accurate way.
(Also note that there is a difference between "gender-neutral" which seeks to avoid gender specific language, and "gender-accurate" which seeks to cast the original documents such that the original intent of the writer with respect to gender is preserved rather than ignored. The TNIV attempts to be gender-accurate, not gender-neutral. I doubt they succeed 100% of the time, but it was their intent. )
Any clearer?
< Message edited by GroupW -- 6/16/2008 6:02:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/5/2008 6:50:10 PM
|
|
|
blueshadow
Posts: 46
Joined: 7/5/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Quick note here..the NLT is NOT a paraphrase, it is an actual translation. It does tend to be more of a "dynamic equivalence" translation than some others.
I think part of the reason the TNIV has gotten so much bad publicity is that, somehow, the fact that they used gender-accurate language became part of the publicity for it, so the people who disapprove of gender-accurate language knew to avoid it. The NLT and other translations which also use gender-accurate language didn't advertise that fact, so perhaps they "slipped under the radar."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/5/2008 11:03:02 PM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 170
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
Why should James Dobson have any say as to what translation should be published? I can't believe they even went to his meeting.
He is a Psychologist, not a theologian and/or language expert.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/6/2008 1:14:37 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 234
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Right, the NLT is a translation, not a paraphrase, and, yes, it is a more "free" dynamic equivalent translation than the NIV.
But, I don't think the TNIV came under fire because of their advertising. I think it was because the NIV is the most widely accepted translation because the translators achieved a good balance between dynamic equivalence and literalness. And, this was percieved by the detractors as a giant leap away from that balance.
I also think that the TNIV came under fire more than the NLT and others because the NIV is accepted by that group that does have an agenda on the way women are to be perceived, and the NLT is not so well accepted by that group.
One thing that bothers me is that there were people who very vocal against the TNIV and proclaiming we don't need yet another translation, there are too many as it is, yet they were at that very time (as far as I can tell) working on the ESV and the HCSB.
PhunkD, that bothers me too, as well as the fact that there weren't other translations experts from other theological backgrounds invited.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/6/2008 6:30:54 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1161
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
I'm going to say this and mosey on my way. I used to believe that the TNIV was heresy in written form until I read some of it. First off, it doesn't neutralize ALL gender referrences, just some of them (ie, God isn't called "mother" or "parent"). Secondly, I had someone who is studying for a masters degree at a Nazarene Seminary tell me that the words that have been neutralized actually probably should have been in the original NIV. So, based on my experience with it and the word of a bona fide Scholar in training, it isn't heretical. If you want to use it, do so with the same reservations you would approaching any translation from one language to another.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/6/2008 6:32:54 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1161
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
PS, I'm sticking with my New King James bible, for what it's worth........
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/6/2008 8:24:54 AM
|
|
|
Stephanos
Posts: 1113
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
No offense Adam, but your friend using the NIV as an argument is kind of weak since most scholars I know stay away from the NIV as well. There is a reason why it is called the "Stupid English Version".
As for the TNIV, while I know that some will quickly attack my links for reasons other than it deals with the TNIV, here they are.
TNIV Altered Meanings
Center for Gender Neutral Bibles
Again, let the flames and accusations about my beliefs begin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/6/2008 3:55:37 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 234
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, let the flames and accusations about my beliefs begin.
I have no desire to accuse you or flame you concerning your beliefs.
I do have issues, however, with what Mr. Poythress wrote in his article that you linked to.
Mr. Poythress wrote in a footnote in which he cited a Hebrew lexicon:
quote:
The word "usually" suggests that sometimes it has the meaning "child" in the singular, but no examples are offered. The change in comparison to earlier lexicons may be due to an egalitarian wish that it meant "child." But no evidence is offered.
"usually" does suggest that another meaning is sometimes appropriate, but Mr. Poythress assumes that the lexicologists added the "usually" because of "an egalitarian wish". It is equally possible, though, that the "usually" really should be there, and that he does not beleive it because of his "complementarian wish".
And, I can provide an clue that this might really be the case. In another footnote he writes:
quote:
"usu.[ally] father, sometimes, esp.[ecially] in pl.[ural], parent." It offers as examples in the singular Isa 38:19; Ezek 18:4; Prov 17:21; and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 3:8. In all four cases the meaning could easily be father. There is no unambiguous evidence that in the singular the meaning is ever parent. And of course there is plenty of unambiguous evidence that it means father.
Indeed, the verses cited in favor of the alleged meaning parent offer a most flimsy basis. Consider Proverbs 17:21. The first half of the verse uses a verb for "begetting" or "fathering," unambiguously indicating the role of the male parent. "He who sires a fool gets himself sorrow" (ESV). The second half uses the singular word for father. It must therefore mean father, not parent.
In Proverts 17:21, where Mr. Poythress writes that the first half of the vers uses a verb for "begetting" or "fathering", I looked up the verse in question, saw that the Hebrew word was "yalad" and then I looked to see what the meanings for yalad were.
The very first meaning listed was "to bear", then "to bring forth" and then "to beget". While older translations of the Bible use "beget" to refer to the father's involvement in producing a child, they use "bear" or "bring forth" to refer to the mother's involvement in producing a child.
Then, I looked to see how yalad was used in scripture, and the very first instance in which this word is used was God talking to Eve, telling her "in pain you shall bring forth (yalad) children.
So, therefore, yalad does not "unambiguously indicate the role of the male parent". And, therefore, there is no unambiguous evidence that the word translated "father" can only mean "father" when in the singular. In fact, this verse does provide evidence that the word "father" can mean "parent".
So, I have to disagree with Mr. Poythress that the evidence produced by Proverbs 17:21 is flimsy. It is not.
He provides another example he calls flimsy:
quote:
Next, Sirach 3:8 says, "Honor your father." Could that possibly mean "honor your parent"? It seems very unlikely, not only because there is no unambiguous case of the meaning parent, but because no one is likely to say it that way. One might say, "Honor your father and your mother," as in Exodus 20:12. One might say, "Honor your father," focusing on one half of the fifth commandment. One might say, "Honor your parents," with a plural form, to include father and mother. One would not say, "Honor your parent," singular, because of its oddity. People do not typically have one parent, but two. The text definitely needs a plural if it wants to be explicitly inclusive.
If you go to Sirach 3, verses 2 through 6 alternate references to your father and to your mother. The alternating references continue after verse 8. In 16 verses, there is only one mention of "parents" in the plural. Verse 9 completes the thought or concept of verse 8 and mentions both the father and the mother singly. This shows that the person referred to in verse 8 can logically and rightly be referring to both the father and the mother, but each of them singly.
quote:
Finally, Isaiah 38:19 says, "The living, the living, he thanks you, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children your faithfulness." Who is to say that this means parent? It could just as easily mean father. This verse does not offer any real evidence for the alleged new meaning. To be sure, the expression "the living" in the first half of the verse is very broad. But focusing on the relation of parent to child is already narrowing it. Just from the context, it is impossible to say with certainty how narrow the focus is. In fact, there is good reason to prefer the translation father, because it is more concrete.
There is just as good reason to translate the word as parent, because it was not Hezekiah's father who made known to him the righteousness of God. Hezekiah's father was one of the most evil kings to rule in Judah.
This is what troubles me about the group who published that website. They can only see scripture through their own framework and seem to ignore any other framework. And, this carried through into that meeting that I mentioned before. As I recall, Mr Poythress was there, but I do not recall any representative from the "egalitarian" side.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/7/2008 8:28:39 PM
|
|
|
turtleman
Posts: 66
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
|
We need to realze the Bible is an eastern book and not filter it through our western ideals. There are some things in the Bible that would be clear to an eastern mind due to customs or traditions that we do not practice. Therefore it is necessary at times to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew to understand the meaning of a passage. So it is best to find a translation that is as accurate as possible. The TNIV from what I understand with it's gender neutral approach and the groups that have endorsed it is not such a translation.
_____________________________
just a few simple thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/8/2008 9:05:31 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2102
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blueshadow
Quick note here..the NLT is NOT a paraphrase, it is an actual translation. It does tend to be more of a "dynamic equivalence" translation than some others.
My bad....duh.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
I'm going to say this and mosey on my way. I used to believe that the TNIV was heresy in written form until I read some of it. First off, it doesn't neutralize ALL gender referrences, just some of them (ie, God isn't called "mother" or "parent"). Secondly, I had someone who is studying for a masters degree at a Nazarene Seminary tell me that the words that have been neutralized actually probably should have been in the original NIV. So, based on my experience with it and the word of a bona fide Scholar in training, it isn't heretical. If you want to use it, do so with the same reservations you would approaching any translation from one language to another.
Adam
Thanks for writing that. That would be my point earlier on being gender-accurate (as in the TNIV) vs gender-nuetral (as in some of the goofiness we all hear about once in a while.) Gender accuracy seeks to translate words of gender accurately with respect to the intent of the author, rendering words intended to be male as male, female as female, and words intended to be inclusive of both genders as inclusive. Pretty simple (in theory, but more difficult in practice). Gender nuetral attempts to remove or make generic all words of gender without respect for the original intent. Gender accurate is a good thing, gender nuetral is just silliness in a biblical translation context.
quote:
ORIGINAL: turtleman
We need to realze the Bible is an eastern book and not filter it through our western ideals. There are some things in the Bible that would be clear to an eastern mind due to customs or traditions that we do not practice. Therefore it is necessary at times to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew to understand the meaning of a passage. So it is best to find a translation that is as accurate as possible. The TNIV from what I understand with it's gender neutral approach and the groups that have endorsed it is not such a translation.
See the above comments - the TNIV is a gender-accurate translation, and not gender nuetral. It was indeed assembled using the current scholarship on the original languages. Like Stephanos, you can argue over the quality of the translation, but in the end it's a reasonable attempt. There may be better, but this one is not bad. In the end, no translation is perfect.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
No offense Adam, but your friend using the NIV as an argument is kind of weak since most scholars I know stay away from the NIV as well. There is a reason why it is called the "Stupid English Version".
As for the TNIV, while I know that some will quickly attack my links for reasons other than it deals with the TNIV, here they are.
TNIV Altered Meanings
Center for Gender Neutral Bibles
Again, let the flames and accusations about my beliefs begin.
No flames, but just the obvious correction regarding Gender-neutrality vs gender accuracy already noted above. The TNIV does not claim to be gender nuetral. As far as translation quality goes, yes there are probably others I prefer. Both websites above seem to insist on the more inflammatory (and inaccurate) description of gender nuetrality.
Phyl2 - thanks for all the research on that. You gave a far better example than I ever could have. Many thanks.
BT
< Message edited by GroupW -- 7/8/2008 9:25:16 AM >
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: TNIV - What's Up? - 7/8/2008 3:57:01 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3863
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
Why should James Dobson have any say as to what translation should be published? I can't believe they even went to his meeting.
He is a Psychologist, not a theologian and/or language expert.
I'll Amen that!
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
