My TNIV arrived today!

Your bias is obvious with your continued attack on the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

TNIV has made sloppy work of translating the original languages in an effort to appease what apparently is nothing less than "man-haters," if we can go by your language.

This bias goes to the root of God's creative order and attacks it.

The fear of the NIV crowd is that we know that ultimately the TNIV is meant to replace the NIV. When they stop publishing the NIV, that will be a real shame.

 

go2church,

Is this a real group??

We've read scriptures together, studied them and we believe that I should be the leader in the home. She follows me in ministry and helps me. She's a great wife. I've never controlled her. She has free will just as I do. We do make decisions together. We talk about things and always make sure that we have communicated.

About her coming to me and saying she's called to pastor, well that's another thread. She would not do that anyway.

As of now you are just throwing accusations out. There is no "control" held. If I tried to control her that would make me a bully.

Anyway, speaking to the original post I have not read the TNIV word for word. I will not be going out to get one though. Next on my list is the NASB when I can find one.

 

Of course he is. He then thinks he makes up what is fact and what is only supposed by him as fact, he is his own authority and has learned the art of "spin" to his own benefit when confronted by his belief system.

I don't have any problem with the tniv, as long as it maintains itself as a version that is just fine, all commentaries are nothing more than versions of the Bible, but then when some one who wants, at least with a tenth grade education, not by any means today's standards,( second year college at best) the Bible in English, well.....The King James Bible.

 

Pick one from column A and one from column B, NO SUBSTITUTIONS!

 

Put yourself in the marketing manager's shoes. Do you reposition yourself to sell Bible's to a new market group (the Rolling Stone readers for example) to expand your marketing base, or do you just continue to sell to people who are replacing their older Bibles?

Do you honestly think that the publisher's of the TNIV are pushing the Rolling Stone group for ANY reason besides business marketing?

This is called "positionining" in marketing. It was done when the baby boomers stopped and the Johnson's Baby shampoo was "Repositioned" to sell to adults--remember the ads, Gentle enough for a child, strong enough for an adult.

The publishers of the TNIV are simply positioning this for maximum sales and sadly, go2church, your posts sound exactly like their commercials.

Why don't you write them, they might pay you to write a recommendation letter for other churches.

My point here is that all of this marketing hype is working very well for the publishers of the TNIV, but it does not excuse a publisher from playing very loose with the translation process. If the writer said "brothers" and there was a Greek word meaning "sisters" and they chose not to use it, then WE should not use it when we are translating. BAD TRANSLATION PRACTICES backed up by millions upon millions of marketing dollars means that the TNIV will become the next best selling Bible.

 

I didn't like the NIV either if that helps.

I think that employing dynamic equivalency as the over-riding philosophy causes/allows translators to insert interpretations rather than translations.

I love my brother Phillip and know that he has defended this version.

Admittedly, I have not carefully reviewed this version but the few portions I have seen I didn't care for. If I remember correctly, there might have been parts of Romans 8 that bothered me. It's been awhile but I am pretty sure that the objectionable passages had to do with election.

 

You keep twisting this around go2church. You started by implying that the TNIV was purposely translated to "reach" people like those that read "The Rolling Stone" magazine. I simply corrected you and said that it is "market driven" and mission work is not the primary agenda for either the way it is marketed or the way it was translated. Sorry, I just don't believe that. Now, if that were also the main purpose behind the ESV, that is fine too. Everybody has a right to make a living. But, you don't make a living purposely skewing a translation so that it will be acceptable to today's world-view.

By the way, Scott, thank you for your kind words.

Let us make something very clear go2church. I am STILL not convinced that the HCSB is a good translation. In fact, in the past few weeks of reading it, I have questioned some of the sentence structure. If you can show me that the HCSB has translational problems, then I will be the first to say that we should not use it. I'm SB, and I don't care WHO printed it. If Holman did a sloppy translation job--then I will stand against the translation.

I have heard claims of gender neutrality in the HCSB, but I have yet to see a legitimate one. If you can please show them to me, then we can discuss it.

Now, let me say one more thing about "gender-neutral". I don't so much have a problem with changing the Hebrew word for "man" (as in mankind) to "human" or some other word relating to the species as a whole.

WHERE I DO HAVE A PROBLEM is changing a word such as "your brother" (When there is also a Greek word for "sister" that was not in the original text) and ADDING "and sisters". THAT is bad translation because the translator is having to make an ASSUMPTION that it also meant "brothers and sisters".

And I have yet to see an example of this in the HCSB. If you can show me any legitimate changes I will be right there with anybody else who wants to pound on it for poor translation.

Finally, I could care less if the NIV goes away. It is certainly not my favorite translation, but it does do a decent job of making scriptures easy for children to read without butchering the originals. In fact, this would be my only recommended use for the NIV, is for young people to read if they have difficulty reading a stiffer, less dynamic translation.

For me, HOWEVER, I can read, and the HCSB is certainly NOT on my highest list YET. I haven't finished studying the translation. My highest list contains the NKJV, KJV, ESV and NASB, with the NASB probably at the top. At least with these four, I have a good sampling of at least two different text streams.

If I were to add the TNIV to my list, then my studies would be corrupted because I know the translation is corrupted.

If you do not think it is, and that it was meant that way, and today's language demands the changes, then you have simply bought into the marketing hype from the publisher. Like I said, write them a reference letter and you will probably get paid.

 

Personally, because the TNIV adds words that were never in the originals just to maintain "gender neutrality," I think the best change for the TNIV would be to change it from paper to ashes. That goes for the NRSV, too.

 

If the original uses one word that (arguably) includes both genders, is it wrong to translate it to include both genders?

If the word for "men" was intended by its author to mean men and women (as in "mankind"), is it wrong to translate it as "men and women"?

 

go2church, thank you for your kind reply. Maybe I was too harsh to you and I appologize if that is the case.

Yes, I think dynamics in translation would be an interesting thread and might open one.

You have to recognize the Holman company has put out their own hype (marketing whatever) and maybe I bought into it before doing my research.

I do know that members of the SBC were involved with the discussions with the NIV publishers when they agreed to only publish the TNIV in Europe. It is also my understanding that the publishers even signed a document to that effect and then went back on their word and launched it in the United States. I think this (along with the royalty fees, I mean, come one, they are all in "business") let the Holman company see a market niche. If nothing but SBC churches buy into the HCSB then that is a huge market.

I do know our Sunday school literature comes in KJV with NIV right along side on every scripture reference. If I am not mistaken, I think the SBC told them if they were coming out with a new gender neutral TNIV (and I mean literal additions that were not in the Greek, not just articles added to make the archaic words form a complete sentence) then they would drop the NIV. This along with royalties and a big market of SB churches simply led to a new translation.

Yes, you are correct. I am having some difficulties with the HCSB due to its seemingly "different" (for lack of a better word) sentence structure.

Where I do have a problem is pulling words out of the air because the translator THINKS that the writer really meant that.

Since the word "sister" is available in Greek, why was it not used by the original authors?

The TNIV publishers claim that it was because of the historical climate at the time it was written. Well, if we start trying to retranslate the Bible based on perceived historical climate of 2000 years ago, then I think we are making a mistake. I think we should stick to the words that God has given us in the manuscripts and use as little dynamic change as possible to make it readable in the English langauge. This is the reason I like my NASB.

I only wish I had a NASB using the Byzantine text, if nothing more than for a comparison.

Again, as far as "man" or "mankind" to "human beings" or other synonymous words and phrases, I don't have a problem with that. It is obvious that "man" refers to "humans" in the sense that it is written. But, even here we must be careful because when God created Adam, he created a "man" not a "man and woman"--at least until Eve was created.

Anyway, that's my humble opinion of it.

 

As long it is used in context with the original text and it is clear to the translator that it is talking about "human beings". I have no problem with this. Its a little ridiculous because it is simply to try to provide some political correctness, but it doesn't change the meaning. Personally, if I were translating I would keep it "mankind" if that is what it meant. Or if it specifically says God made "man" (even as a race), I would translate it directly. That way we know we are not tampering with God's Words. But, that is my opinion.

Now:

Here's where I draw the line:

Take a sentence that translates as "Speak to your brother about this." (just using a sentence example here). The Greek, did indeed, have words for "sister". If it says "brother" and does not include the Greek word for "sister"--how are we to determine what the author really meant if we go adding: "and sister" each time "brother" shows up? This now becomes a translational decision based on the bias of the translator. The Greek sentence did NOT say: "Speak to your brother and sister about this." So, "and sister" is corruption (error) of the translation process.

As Dr. Bob puts it; it is like sucking a word out of the translator's thumb. This style of translation goes beyond dynamic to actual "addition" of words which are not implied by the Greek (or Hebrew).

Does that make sense?

 

I have not read the TNIV. I have looked at the NIV, studied in the NASV when I was younger and currently stick with the KJV for the most part. I would only caution that Bible translations that are more concerned with appeasing the culture than creating a reliable translation (meaning as close to the original meaning as the translator can possibly get), then run from it.

The Bible is God's word, man has no right to bend it to his own purposes. I hope that every Christian might guard his heart and be mindful of this.