TNIV : Pro and Con

Yes indeed.

 

I know this will have no impact on those who have already cast their judgement on the TNIV, but here is an article from the IBS explaining why "gender-accuracy" was important in the TNIV. Determine for yourself if it is about politics or about accurate translation to a receptor language.

An fyi that I do not use the TNIV and am not trying to encourage anyone to use it. I simply wish to encourage fairness, critical thinking and spiritual discernment in evaluating translations.

 

Here is why the TNIV burns at me. For one, I see only a few needs for a new translation: To try to make a more accurate one, try to make a more readable one, or to create a bible in a language which formerly did not have one.

Personally, I think the NIV is very readable. I have compared many passages, and I do not feel the TNIV is any easier. Its just about the same.

There is no way making everything possible into a neutral gender is more accurate. I could post several, but this thread already contains enough evidence of uneeded neutralizations. Anyone who says that they are insulted by the word "brothers" or "him" is showing complete ignorance of the culture behind the bible. The culture places a work IN ITS CORRECT CONTEXT. Divorcing words or works from their context is what leads to these problems.
It is clear when the bible says brothers, there are times when it is meant for all people. I am unaware of a passage where we are left in serious wonder. Any attempt to change what the bible originally said, esp where there arent even any textual variants, and force it to conform to our petty prides (such as ultra feminism) is something the bible itself condemns. I believe it is only through pride that anyone has a problem with using masculine wording in the bible.

I refuse to believe that there is anyone in america who is even semi educated who cannot grasp the concept of the fact that other cultures do things other ways, and 2000 years ago was a different time, and that "brothers" many times means women too, and shouldnt need to be changed for them to finally get the picture. Anyone who claims otherwise is insulting the person they are defending.

 

How gender-inclusive is the English language?
According to French grammar, the male plural explicitly covers mixed groups. The female plural is only ever used to describe women only groups.

 

Yes other cultures use masculine words as gender inclusive terms. Modern translations are not done for people of those cultures who are dead but for people in our current culture. I do not believe God's words are restricted to the languages and cultures of 2000 years ago or 400 years ago but every language and culture: past, present and future.

[ February 13, 2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

In the past, english was the same. Of course the situation is dramatically different in modern english such that many folks in our modern culture no longer see male singular or plural terms as being gender inclusive ones. Modern translations need to recognize this change in the english language if it wishes to accurately translate the contextual meaning of the original languages in the receptor language of current english.

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]DeclareHim,

While I agree with you personally that whenever I read "brothers" I understand it to include our sisters in Christ. However, that is not true for all Christians, especially the generation X. I asked my then 15-yr-old daughter what she thought when I read some verses from the old NIV with "brothers," and she genuinely responded that she assumed it was only speaking to the men. My daughter is pretty smart, and was being sincere.

So IMO we have to realize that the English language has changed some in the past 25 years or so. Was it the result of political type manuevering by some? Perhaps. But so what? What matters is that it has changed and we want to communicate accurately to the world.

BTW, it's ADELPHOI - plural - in 1 Thess. 4:1. As far as I am concerned, they can call it "brothers," "brothers and sisters" or "y'all." And we are not talking about "changing" God's Word. It was originally written in the Greek, not English. And there is Greek support for it. It is actually more accurate. I do not personally like how it sounds... "Brothers and sisters." It just doesn't "feel" necessary. But I will not oppose it. They've got a valid point.

In my estimation more of the changes the TNIV made have resulted in a more accurate or acceptable translation than the reverse. (At least 2/3rd)

I do own a TNIV - gave it to my daughter, who promptly lost it. So I had to buy another one. (BTW, neither my wife or daughter are in the least bit feminists, though my daughter has been known to call me a chauvinist pig - but not in the past couple of years.)

I've followed the debates on this issue with the Btranslation group over the years, and am a member of the group. When the discussions got hot and heavy in about 2001, after the TNIV was announced, I got heavily involved myself in those discussions - in opposition to the TNIV and the precious NIVI. For those interested, I recommend Mike, Wayne and Peter's opinions. I followed the debate between Wayne Grudem and Mark Strauss closely in 2002. I read the CBMW arguments against the TNIV (all 903 or however many there were). Point is - I have followed this issue closely over the years. I used to line up with Grudem. I don't anymore.

I went carefully through most of those 900+ passages where changes were made, and determined that I disagreed with about 1/3 of them, in general, and eventually determined that I could go along with the others, though it was not my preference.

The original version of the TNIV had a translation of 1 Tim. 3:11 in which GUNAIKAS ("women"/"wives") was translated "deaconesses." That blew me away and was the primary reason I refused to endorse it. But in more recent versions they have followed the example of the NASB translating it as "women." (plural of GUNE - which can be translated either as "women" or "wives," depending on context. There are strong arguments for both possibilities there, IMO. "Women" allows for both possibilities to be seen by the reader, whereas "wives" does not.)

The main issue I had was the translation of singular pronouns as plural. For example:

The Greek for "anyone" is TIS - no masculinity inherent there.
"them" = AUTON - 3P sing. M personal pronoun
"they" = AUTOU - 3P sing. M personal pronoun

I felt that it was better to translate it as "him" and "he" than "them" and "they." The arguments made were that in today's English "they"/"them" can be used to generically represent the singular, and is done so often. For example, "Does anyone here believe the Bible? if so, they should..." Again, I tested this out on my daughter and some other young people, and they recognized that "they" was acting as a singular pronoun.

I don't like switching the plurality there from a purely grammatical POV. But I asked a few English teachers in high school, college, etc., as well as my wife - who is not in favor of politically-correct translations in general, and eventually had to acknowledge that this is the accepted practice today. And it certainly sounds better than the use of "one."

Now most of the issues have to do with this particular handling of pronouns. (Over 50% I believe.) Most of the rest have to do with the translation of 3 Greek words:

ADELPHOI - "brothers." In those days, as it was in America 50 years ago - male representative language was common. I personally just do not like translating it as "brothers and sisters" all the time, but I put up with it, and it is grammatically and linguistically valid.

ANQRWPOS - It means in general "person." It has been translated as "man" by older translations using male representative speech, but is not actually as accurate as how the TNIV handles it. Grudem acknowledges this, and the ESV and HCSB, which the CBMW support, do such as well, for the most part. Sometimes they do not, and I'm not entirely sure why they're not consistent there, insisting on using male-representative language when to do so is actually not as accurate of a translation of the Greek.

ANER/ANDROS - "male", "man." This should always be translated with a masculine sense IMO. It is the word which compares to "GUNE." In a few occasions, the TNIV, as do other gender-inclusive translations, translates it without such a masculine sense. I don't agree, but they do have an argument there perhaps. A good example of such would be James 1:12
TNIV - Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
NIV - Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

ANER is used there - singular, and translated as "those" in the TNIV and "the man" in the NIV. The "he" in the NIV is its translation of a participle - no pronoun is there. So the TNIV is just fine there, though the "him" is more accurate as a translation of ANER. But we have to ask ourselves if James was only addressing the men. Perhaps he was - in the heavily dominated male Jewish society. But was it intended to apply to women as well as men? Of course. James was simply using male representative language probably.

The TNIV has made several translation improvements which are not related to gender-inclusiveness - about 70% - in general making the TNIV more literal than the NIV, and perhaps losing a bit of readability in the process. Another issue we have to recognize is that the people at the time of Christ also used male representative language in Greek. We do not use it much today - or perhaps I should say that gen-X people do not. ("Male representative" language is simply the practice of using masculine pronouns to represent men and women - "He" this or that... There is nothing biblical or langauge related to it - it is simply a custom. It is simply a practice of "man." It is not more grammatically accurate or godly in doing so.)

IMO, the objections to the TNIV are in general overblown.

I like the TNIV better than the NIV. Now you have to realize that I do not like the NIV. It reads very well, but has a strong Reformed bias which I just cannot put up with personally. I like the HCSB much better.

FWIW,

FA

[ February 13, 2006, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Faith alone ]

 

Actually, the NIV is probably a bit more readable... yet a bit less accurate/literal as well.

But that is simply not what the TNIV has done - that is exaggerating. It's not simply a matter of people being insulted by "brothers" or "him," but also accuracy of understanding. And we do need to care about those who will not even read a Bible that insults them. They are genuinely offended by language that is no longeer appropriate. The language has changed, and they see us as being close-minded and uncaring. Personally, I do not imagine that if Christ came today that He would use male-representative language.

And ANQRWPOS does not mean "man" in a masculine sense. It simply does not. ADELPHOI does not mean "brothers" in a masculine sense - it refers to men and women.

The Bible has not been "changed." Same Greek MSS there. Those who have translated them "differently" have arguments for their translation being more accurate.

Ever taken a poll on it? I'm serious. I have. many highly educated people do misunderstand, because the language has changed. We don't use male-representative language much anymore. OK, OK, I still use it often... without thinking. And other people over 50 understand it just fine. I've got an idea... why not all use the Tyndale translation of 1516? The KJV was a revision of it (along with the Bishop's Bible and others which were ALl based on Tyndale's work) How about the following:

CYL,

FA

 

please delete

 

Well, it used to be quite common in English as well. But it isn't anymore. Languages evolve. Today in English the 3rd person plural represents singular male and female. ("they"/"them"/)

FA

 

DeclareHim,

FYI, I personally have a bigger problem with "fellow Christians." Better to say the awkward "brothers and sisters," IMO, because it's more accurate. Also, we might miss out on the implication not just hat we are fellow Christians, but that we are of the same family in Christ.

And FWIW, "women" wasn't added. It is included in ADELPHOI. Here's what Liddell & Scott says (the lexicon professional translators use):

Notice that when plural ("ADELPHOI") it refers first to "brother and sister."

FA

 

Guys,

I just found something which should be of intertest to all of us regarding the NTIV. I mentioned a Bible translation egroup which I have been a member of for about 6 years or more. One of the moderators of that list has a blog on translation. He posted there an interview with JI Packer (posted 13th and 14th of Feb). It has to do with the TNIV - Packer was one of those whp signed that refusal to endorse the TNIV in 2002. He is asked why hee signed it and how hee feels about the TNIV. In the process, he comments on the NIv and the NLT, which he likes, as well.

This thread seems kind of dead. I posted some sigficant comments on the TNIV early yesterday and no one haas commented Yea or Nay yet. If it remains dead, I'll start a new thread so that Packer's comments don't get buried.

I'll post it below:

Monday, February 13, 2006
J I Packer on the NIV, TNIV and NLT
I spoke with Dr. J I Packer in his office last Friday afternoon, Feb. 10. I taped the hour long conversation with his agreement. Although I had prepared my questions, it became at times more of a conversation.

For this post, I have taken from the middle of the conversation a piece that I find he developed in greater detail than some other parts. To put this in context, while I was preparing to leave, after I had turned the tape off, he summarized his comments on the different Bible versions. "Horses for courses," he said with great enthusiasm.

Suzanne: I want to talk about the TNIV statement that was written in 2002, the statement against the TNIV. I wondered, you didn’t feel it was trustworthy, that it was not up to Bible translation standards.

Dr. Packer: I will only say first that my understanding of what translation should aim at, is not quite the same as that of either the original NIV or the TNIV and I will tell you specifically what difference I see. The NIV and the TNIV were, in both cases, seeking to package the word of God for a particular reading public which the translators thought they could identify and characterize. It is very obvious, actually the TNIV which has been marketed in terms of “This is the Bible for persons between 18 – 35" have you spotted all that?

Working with the NIV, I haven’t actually matched this with the TNIV, my years with the NIV were, I felt, sufficient. I found it a very frustrating version to teach from. I haven’t actually used the TNIV but my years with the NIV was enough, because it is an in and out version, when a literal translation is clear they give you a literal translation. When they think they are confronted with a form or words which, if literally translated, or should I say, directly translated, wouldn’t communicate very well, without warning of what they are doing they go off into paraphrase.

You see what I mean. When you are teaching, at least when you are teaching at graduate level, which is what we have here, you want as much precision as you can have and actually when you are standing in the pulpit, the same is true. It irritates the preacher and the congregation if he is constantly having to say this that we have got in front of us isn’t actually what the text says.

Let me say this. I am not an exponent of the view that there is only one way to translate the Bible. I am an exponent of the view that among the many ways of translating the Bible some are better than others on balance … there is a computation of pros and cons. And its a tradeoff. This way of doing it for the purpose for which you are doing it, if this is the purpose, achieves more than doing it any other way, if this is the purpose you have. If you have a different purpose, well of course, the rules change and then it is likely that a different way of doing it will seem more appropriate.

Suzanne: To me the TNIV seemed appropriate for its purpose.

Dr. Packer: Then I say the best of luck.

Suzanne: Well, I have been using Good News Bible.

Dr. Packer: Then I say I think the Good News Bible is very good.

Suzanne: And the New Living?

Dr. Packer: I also say the New Living is very good for what it is and once you understand what it is, well ...

Suzanne: I have to ask you, as I was asked to ask you some of these questions, they said please ask Dr. Packer how about the TNIV? What does he still feel about it?

Dr. Packer: Well, here is something that you can quote from me. I think I understand what the TNIV intends to do and I think that the NLB does the same thing better.

Suzanne: Okay. Does that make the TNIV untrustworthy?

Dr. Packer: No, it doesn’t. It just means that if you’ve got enough money to buy one further Bible I would encourage you to buy the New Living before you buy the TNIV.

Suzanne: That is very interesting. I haven’t used the New Living Bible. I will look at it.

Dr. Packer: Well, different things appeal to different people but I think that the New Living is– it is brilliantly done, but every translation has one or two weak spots and so has the New Living - not very many.

Suzanne: Every Bible has something.

Dr. Packer: Yeah, that’s right.

As I left he said,

"The scholars of the TNIV are extremely learned men. They are my colleagues here, you know."


I will post more in a few days.

posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 10:13 PM

---

Next day:

Tuesday, February 14, 2006
J I Packer and the Statement of Concern
Yesterday, I posted part of my conversation with Dr. Packer about the different Bible versions. I was particularly interested in finding out how Dr. Packer came to sign the May 28, 2002, statement below. I wished to understand why he would sign this document if he did not find the TNIV untrustworthy. Here is the statement and Dr. Packer's response.

Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible

Recently, the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing announced their joint decision to publish a new translation of the Bible, known as Today's New International Version (TNIV). The TNIV makes significant changes in the gender language that is in the NIV. The TNIV raises more concern in this regard than previous Bible versions because, riding on the reputation of the NIV, the TNIV may vie for a place as the church's commonly accepted Bible. We believe that any commonly accepted Bible of the church should be more faithful to the language of the original.

We acknowledge that Bible scholars sometimes disagree about translation methods and about which English words best translate the original languages. We also agree that it is appropriate to use gender-neutral expressions where the original language does not include any male or female meaning. However, we believe the TNIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards in several important respects.

Because of these and other misgivings, we cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study, and reading Bible of the Christian community.

Dr. Packer: I can only respond that we who subscribed to the statement were coming from a different starting point. What we were noticing was that the TNIV did everything it could to be, as they say, as gender neutral as possible which was a sort of concealment of what was said in the Bible.

At some points the TNIV is not what I would want a Bible to be. I didn’t draft the document. I was ready, you are faced with choices, you are having to consider the pros and the cons. I was ready to sign the document. I agreed with the substance if not with the precise manner of expression.

You may know, you may not know, that I am not an American. I have behind me no culture of the fundamentalist kind which says that the stronger you feel, the stronger your language. I am a Brit and always try to express myself in the way which is as cool as can be consistent with the emphasis I am trying to make. That is the cultural difference. The TNIV comment was drafted by one or more Americans. I don’t know who. It was put to me already drafted.

Suzanne: I believe that it was Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem. The statement is found in their book.

(Dr. Packer was not able to confirm who had drafted the statement. I cannot be sure, either, of who actually drafted it. )

Suzanne: These are the people who said that they had no idea that adelphoi could mean 'brothers and sisters' before they drafted the Colorado Springs document, and I have to say that I questioned their scholarship, their ability to use lexicons.

Dr. Packer: You are really telling me that Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress agreed on saying that.

Suzanne: They wrote in their book. (p. 451) I was very surprised.

Dr. Packer: Well, I am very surprised also, but then I had a classical Greek education as you did.

...

I later came back to this and asked him if he had, in fact, read The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Controversy by Poythress and Grudem, which they wrote on this topic. He said that he had not read the book, it was a matter of priority, there is only so much time.

However, there is an endorsement on the back cover, stating, "This is the best book on its theme." J I Packer.

posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 8:42 PM

---

Comments?

 

Yes, it is interesting that his endorsement of their book was on the cover and yet he has never actually read it! (You'd think that would be a requirement for endorsing a book.) But there was a strong, emotional reaction to the NIVI and later the TNIV. Personally, I do not approve of all of the translation decisions of the TNIV, but I accept most of them, now that I better understand them.

I also find myself curiously agreeing with Packer in that I support the TNIV G-I choices, in general, though since I do not care all that much for the NIV I naturally won't like the TNIV too much either. I have also observed the inconsistency in translation in the NIV. I often don't feel that I can trust it.

But IMO much of the reaction to the TNIV is overblown and based on a misunderstanding of sound translation principles. But I do personally prefer the ESV and the HCSB, though IMO they have not gone far enough in G-I.

Thx,

FA

 

OK, I would like to take a gender-oriented survey. Please keep track of how many of the following 11 cases below in your opinion the 2nd choice is as accurate as the first choice. The purpose of this survey is NOT to gauge how many of us prefer saying "men" when we mean "people" and other generic language usage comparisons. (This is usually called "male-representative" language.) The purpose is to see how many of us believe that to say "men" is more accurate than to say "people," or that to say "brothers" is more accurate than to say "brothers and sisters."

I suspect that many of us are not really familiar with the specific kinds of differences between gender-inclusive and non-gender-inclusive translations, and this may give us an opportunity to become more acquainted with the issues.

With how many of the following 11 statements from the Bible would you accept the second choice as being as accurate as the first choice?

OK, here are the statements. Just read them and keep track how many times with the 11 below you would accept the 2nd choice as accurate. The purpose of the first choice is just for comparison - it is a non-gender-inclusive type translation, not necessarily the KJV. The question is whether or not in your opinion the 2nd choice is as accurate as the first. You should have some answer from 0 to 11, 0 meaning that in your opinion none of the cases below is as accurate in the 2nd choice as the 1st, while 11 would mean in that in every case below the 2nd choice is as accurate (or perhaps more accurate) as the 1st choice..

You may want to share why you do not approve of a particular expression in the second choice (or perhaps in the first choice).

If it still isn't clear, remember that the idea is to see if using "male-representative" language - "he" for both men and women, etc. - is more accurate than using "they" or "brothers and sisters," etc.. If you're comfortable with both, then choose the 2nd one. If using "people" instead of "men" in your Bibles seems to be as accurate or more accurate to you, then choose the 2nd choice. Each one of these are actual verses from the Bible, though the reference is not given. The 1st one is more KJ-ish, less gender-inclusive. The 2nd choice will be more as we speak today. Please remember not to pick the one which you simply PREFER, but the one that you believe to be more ACCURATE. If you're comfortable with both - then choose the 2nd one. Now, I hope that's as clear as mud!

Hope this hasn't been confusing. Just tally up the # of times you went with the 1st choice as more accurate and tell us your total.

One reason I made this survey is because I think that most of us are not aware of the kind of changes involved. We may emotionally react to the concern that our Bibles are being "changed" according to some feminist agenda. IMO, much of it is overreaction. What's your opinion after considering some specific examples?

Thx,

FA

 

I have supported the TNIV here in my posts, so you may be surprised to learn that I actually am not in agreement with nearly 1/2 of the gender-inclusive translation principles the TNIV is based upon. But most of them (quatitatively) have to do with the use of "they/them/theirs" in place of "he/him/his" - the use of plural pronouns for singular pronouns in a generic manner. Incidently, many linguists (but still a small minority) are opposed to such English usage today. So probably 70% of the changes actually made (quantitatively) I agree with.

You guys seem like an educated lot re. gender inclusive stuff. I once prepared a list of passages by considering the TNIV differences which the CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Wayne Gruden's organization) lists on their website which they oppose. There they list the response of the CBT (Committee for Bible Translation - an autonomous group which does not have to account for its decisions to Zondervan in general) to each type of G-I with the verses which the CBMW cited as examples, and there is also the corresponding rebuttal to that response by the CBMW. It's quite informative, though the overall slant will be in opposition to G-I translation principles, of course. Incidently, Zondervan purposely set up the CBT as separate from Zondervan itself so that there would not be the political influence upon it that is sometimes present. I don't think any other translation committee was set up in such a manner, so you have to respect them for their attempt to allow godly men to translate as they feel led by God and based on their integrity - not being affected as much by political influences.

Some of you may not be aware, but this all started in 1998 when news leaked out that a G-I revision of the NIV, called the NIVI (NIV Inclusive), was in the works by the CBT, which is the Bible translations committee for Zondervan. It was called the "stealth Bible" because of the way it was going to be done. (The NIV was going to be quietly phased out and the NIVI would replace it. Apparently they did not anticipate the reaction from CBMW and other traditional Christian scholars.) There was intense public reaction, especially from evangelical Christianity, and eventually a group of scholars on both sides of the issue met in Colorado Springs and came up with the CSG (Colorado Springs Guidelines) - a list of conservative principles to be followed when making G-I translation decisions. Zondervan was made to back down because of the intense public reaction.

Zondervan apparently agreed to follow this CGS in the future, and said that the NIV would not be changed again. However, the CBT was not involved in this agreement - and remember that has autonomity. This was originally done so that it would be free to translate without feeling the pressure of lobbyists for certain special interests. The CBT, remember, is who actually does the work of the translation, and they had not agreed to not touch the NIV. (Actually there was a written agreement to the effect that the NIV would never cease from revisions as necessary, so to freeze it as is violates the original charter.)

Now, about 5 years ago Zondervan announced the upcoming release of another G-I translation very similar to the NIVI - the TNIV. There was again much reaction ot it, and debates over the principles of Bible translation used - which do not follow the CSG - though they align to some of them. The main opponent of the TNIV is the CBWM . The CBMW understandably felt that Zondervan had changed their mind from an agreement made at the Colorado Springs meetings, and were irate. The CBT insisted that no such agreement had been made by them, and that they were simply following through on the NIV original charter that the NIV would continue to be revised.

If you are interested in such things, there is a good book out by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem called, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. The introduction alone is excellent. It was written in opposition to the TNIV predecessor, the NIVI. You can also search for material by Dr. Mark Strauss who in general is the spokesman for the TNIV. He and Grudem have debated on this issue. Also, Dr. Darrell Boch has written a couple of articles somewhat in the middle, explaining the translation process which are quite good, IMO. (Search for them at www.bible.org) There are many well-known supporters of both sides of this controversy.

Most modern translations of the past 20 years are gender-inclusive (G-I) at least to a degree. Another common term used is male-representative (M-R) language. For example, if I say, "brethren, let's go to the baptismal for the baptism service," I am referring to all believers, yet technically "brethren" or "brothers" is a male term which normally refers only to men. Some feel quite comfortable using it in a more generic sense - I do. Others are bothered by such usage. I thought it might be interesting to look at each of the 10 types of G-I choices to which the CBMW is opposed, and which originally comprised the CSG (Colorado Spring Guidelines).

I will list the 10 examples on the next post so as to not make this post too long...

Thx,

FA

 

Well, I cant say from my own study, but dh says TNIV is the most well translated when it comes to gender.

 

Gender-Inclusive choices which are opposed to the CSG (Colorado Springs Guidelines):

It should be mentioned that the first version of the TNIV came out in 2002. But due to the reaction of so many American Christians (The NIVI was introduced to the British Commonwealth in 1998 with little reaction) and in particular to the strong reaction of the CBMW which was endorsed by many Christian leaders, they made many revisions. IMO the TNIV is now more conservative than most modern translations in terms of gender inclusiveness. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:11 the TNIV translated GUNE at one time as "deaconists," thought the Greek term for deacon (DIAKON) was not used in that sentence at all. Most older translations translated GUNAIKAS as "wives" though the term can mean either "wives" or "women," depending on context. The NASB translates it as "women," which I prefer, as it allows for the reader to interpert it as either wives of the deacons or women, who are deacons. There are strong arguments for both possibilities, so why not let the reader decide? But due to strong opposition to this translation, the TNIV committee backed down and in their 2005 revision translates it as "women."


Following are some examples of what the CBMW still object to with the TNIV, though some are not as prevalent as with the first release. I am hoping listing such specific principles and examples from scripture will help spark healthy discussion. Incidently, the TNIV online website allows you to print out any verse or passage in the KJV, NIV and the TNIV for comparison:

Just FYI, most of these TNIV changes I agree with or at least accept as valid, though not a personal preference. But 6 through 10 I have questions about. In general I agree with how they handle "son of man," but when "Son of Man" is clearly a reference to the Messiah, why refer to it as "humankind?" We then lose a critical, distinct Messianic sense. There is a term for "parents" used often in the NT - GONEIS (over 20 times) - so I question the translation of PATER (even when plural) as "parents." James 1:12 is an example where it is hard to argue against translating ANER to refer to people in general. Surely James was not merely addressing the temptation of men alone. And the Greek has a couple of terms used often in the NT for "children" (PAIS, TEKNON), so it doesn't seem necessary to translate hOIOI ("sons") as "children." In such contexts, why not let the reader interpret it himself and draw any conclusions about whether or not it applies to children in general, or if some other distinction was intended. But notice that the KJV translated it as "children" as well in the example above, so I won't resist that one too strenously either.

So I do not object to the TNIV translation... I'm just not comfortable with all of its gender-inclusive principles of translation.

Comments? (Why has this thread become so dead?) I'd be interested in which of these principles of translation by the CBT that those on both sides of this issue object to.

FA

 

I have not read the TNIV yet, but while perusing parts of it on the TNIV home page, I got the distinct impression that much of the initial resistance to it (and also that which still goes on today) stems from overblown hype. They have not turned God into a woman and Jesus is still the Son Of God.

I did download the pdf copy of the TNIV and plan to read it later. Perhaps, I will give a more detailed response to it later.

 

Tc,

I agree. You can go to their website and read the KJV, NIV and TNIV side-by-side.

Dr. Darrell Bock wrote a nice article on this, explaining just as you have that there are gender-inclusive translations and there are gender-inclusive translations... some have an agenda, and others are simply trying to be more accurate. I may not agree with all of their translations decisions regarding such accuracy, but I'm not getting upset over it.

That Bock article wasn't at www.bible.org anymore, but a friend of mine notified them and they put it back - merely a slip-ip. Here's the link:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3572

FA