TNIV : Pro and Con

Matthew 18:15-21

Do we really think women are so stupid they can't figure out that they apply here as well? There is no Greek support for adding 'sister' in the above passage. Also besides the gender nuetral language the NIV's inclusion of 'against you' is the correct rendering.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:1-4

Again there is no Greek or original language support for the above gender inclusiveness. "adelphos" in the Greek here is singular and the TNIV tries to make it plural. God said don't change His Word. Do you think he meant it?

 

As I posted above the TNIV is a decent translation but to claim it belongs in the top ten when it has bowed to the Women's Right Movement is wrong. Women are not stupid and the Holy Bible does not need to be changed just because a few feminist out there somewhere didn't think the Bible was ever speaking to them. There is also the fact they lied about working on it right up until they released a preview version of the NT. How do you deal with that the people responsible for it are lying about it. Maybe they should read God's Word instead of trying to cash in on another Bible with the name of the NIV stuck on it.

 

I agree that when there is no manuscript evidence for making a change in the text that no change should be made. Of course when the Bible says "brother" it is not excluding women. Women as Christians are included, too. But changing the Bible because someone doesn't like the way it reads is not only inexcusable, it is "adding to" Scripture.

 

In 1 Thess 4, it is plural--adelphoi.

I'm on board for a resistance to changing singular to plural, but translating adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" isn't a misrepresentation of its meaning.

 

More junque ideas, so someone can copyright a new version and peddle it to the masses for $$$.I wonder if the scribes, who faithfully preserved the MSS ever got any royalties? This is the same as people taking the KJV, updating it to modern English, and then copyrighting it.

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

 

Some instances where the KJV changes a gender specific to a gender neutral. There are many others.

LITV = Jay Green's Literal Translation

Deut 32:5
LITV: They have corrupted themselves; they are not His sons; it is their blemish; they are a crooked and perverse generation.
KJV: They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

Matt 5:9
LITV: Blessed are the peacemakers! For they shall be called sons of God.
KJV: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

An instance where singular pronouns in the original languages are changed to plural ones in the KJV.

Num 22:11
LITV : saying , Behold, a people has come out of Egypt which covers the eye of the earth. Now come, curse them for me; perhaps I will be able to overcome it and drive it out.
KJV : Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out.

 

Could someone explain to me why we need gender neutral language Bibles? Are there really people out there that aren't smart enough to realize that they are included even though the text doesn't mention it? BTW I don't condone any version changing the original language intent. The KJV has errors just like the TNIV and ESV,HCSB etc.

 

Yes, unfortunately, there are.

 

I would say because there is no such thing as a non-gender neutral language Bible. All English translations have some level of gender neutrality in their translation philosophy.

 

I understand why some translations use it. I just don't know why we have to go through the Bible and make everything possible gender neutral.

 

it has nothing to do with the bible, and everything to do with politics.

Its asinine.

 

In the Numbers passage above "a people" refers to a group, and "them" is a better translation than "it." I find it odd that Green got it right in part of the verse but botched it in part of the verse.

In Deuteronomy 32:5 the Hebrew word in question is ben which, according to Strong's, can be translated as either son (masculine) or children (covering both masculine and feminine).

In Matthew 5:9 the Greek word in question is hulos, a masculine noun that means "son." Green's translation is more accurate than the KJV translation in this instance.

 

You see politics. I see attempts at translation accuracy in the receptor language.

 

If it's needed to clarify fine but the TNIV takes everything and makes it gener neutral. I just don't see the need. In some cases in the NT when Paul opens a letter greeting the church I have no problem with something like "fellow christians" or something to that effect. What makes me believe the TNIV is more political as well is the fact that it translates 'brothers and sisters' it's like it has to add women in or else.

 

I'm assuming this question is rhetorical. Sad, isn't it?

 

I agree that it is a better translation. My point is that changing a singular to a plural is not always the wrong translation choice.

I agree that children is a valid translation. But ben is a masculine word in the original hebrew that can be correctly translated to a gender neutral term, like many of the choices done by the TNIV.

The LITV may be more word accurate but not necessarily more thought accurate. If being word accurate leads to misunderstanding, then it isn't more accurate. The LITV is much more word accurate that many other english translations. I wouldn't say it is a very accurate translation though.