My TNIV arrived today!

I hope it was a sample and you didn't pay them for it.

 

Why? I thought you people thought God preserves His Word in every "bible"? dOESN'T THE TNIV contain the Gospel?

 

Alot of what you think is contrary to reality.

 

And to think that you would refrain from making personal attacks your motive. But then your reality is not a reality, except in the corruption of what is established truth.

 

Gentlemen,

Please. stay on topic here.

 

Well? Does the tniv contain the Gospel or not? My Sunday School Quarterly does, is that justification to render it a "version" of the Bible?

Trolls accepted as to grant their topical, not typical, response.

 

The question isn't, "Does the TNIV contain the gospel?", but rather, "Does the TNIV translate accurately the original languages into English?"

The answer to that question is a resounding "No!"

 

It's tough to say, "What do you think?" and then say, "I'm not looking for a debate."

What approach would you like taken?

 

I do not appreciate that remark. I don't "control" my wife, however we believe it to be biblical for me to be the spiritual leader in our home.

 

The TNIV has been available on the internet for quite a while now. There are locations where the text varies from the original Greek/Hebrew.

I have a problem with any translation that makes a choice to vary from the original manuscripts. Dynamic translation is one thing--changing or adding things that don't exist (like "brothers and sisters") are not good translational practices.

If they are doing it for the sake of political correctness, so what? God didn't inspire the Bible to be politically correct in today's corrupt society.

As far as Plain ol' Ralph's question. We accept any translation that is translated as accurately as possible from one of the major source groups. Preference of the source, is another issue. The problem related to the TNIV has nothing to do with the source documents, but has everything to do with purposeful changing of the original text to meet today's society. (Notice I did not say to meet today's modern ENGLISH.)

POR, this is the same as The Message. It is NOT a good translation. Does it carry the gospel? Probably, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Would I recommend the NASB? Absolutely!

 

PoR said:

[/qb]

Scott J said:

C4K said:

Sorry C4K. My point was that PoR was wrong to characterize us that way.

I am discerning and selective about what I consider to be a good translation and why.

I don't own and will not voluntarily use an NIV much less a TNIV.

I believe all gender neutral Bibles are wrong... but then again I don't like dynamic equivalencies at all.

 

Not a personal attack but rather a statement of fact.

Just because we are not KJVO does not mean that we accept any thing that has Bible on it somewhere as being a valid translation.

I would have hoped that you and I could have agreed on the TNIV for real reasons. Instead, you started out by offending all non-KJVO's by inferring that none of us are discerning.

 

Are you implying that someone who accepts the TNIV as a 'valid' translation is somehow less discerning than yourself?

 

Do I think acceptance of a translation that intentionally changes the meaning of what God said in the originals lacks discernment? Yes.

I am not talking about honest disagreements over texts or word meanings. I am talking about the specific act of changing the meaning of a word to adjust it to a bias.

 

Bottom line, James, we can either make this personal (which we don't want to do because the moderator--oops that's me--will edit it.) or we can discuss the issue of whether or not the TNIV is a 'valid translation'.

In my opinion, the TNIV is a very poor translation because it varies from the underlying Greek/Hebrew. ANY translation that purposely varies (not a misprint or mistake in an earlier version) from the originals should not be considered a decent translation.

Adding the word "and sisters" to "brothers", just because the translator THINKS that is what the author may have meant does NOT make it right. It should be translated strictly as written.

Note: I am not referring to dynamic translation, which is a whole other debate. Even dynamic translation should not add something that does not exist.

 

The point of translation should be to reflect the original word meanings and phrase meanings to the greatest degree possible. Some dynamic equivalency will almost always be required to make sense.

When someone creates a Bible version premised on a bias that has nothing to do with accurate transmission of what God said then I will not support that version.

 

Hi go2church!

After the last time that I posted on this subject, my hard drive crashed.......but I'll take a chance anyway.

Not looking for debate (as we agreed to disagree), just curious as to why you feel that the TNIV is such a good translation......

What do you, in your opinion feel that the single most endearing quality of the TNIV is, and why do you feel that it will reach where other translations won't?

As I said, not looking for a "fight", I'm just really curious..