new TNIV field test

I've been warned that this translation is not authenticate to original word meanings,etc....by my local church. We have been told this one is not a good one. Sorry.

 

Frankly, I think it's sad that translation committees need to 'dumb down' their particular versions, just because most kids/adults don't read, or don't read at levels of previous generations. Perhaps it would be well for Christian parents to help/encourage their children to spend more time reading, and less time with X box.

 

I have been trying out the TNIV for about 2 weeks now, so far so good, there are many passages that are exactly the same and most changes are single words so I don't have anything negative to say, but then again it has only been two weeks.

 

The appearance of the TNIV has brought some-
thing out in people who hate it that has been
most disturbing--a vicious, nasty, biting criti-
cism that has been ugly to watch. People
gathering others to their sides to fight yet ano-
ther translation, people criticizing those who
don't agree with them.

Yet the loudest of all the critics of the TNIV have
been people who, when pinned down, must
admit that they are not biblical language schol-
ars; neither have they read the whole Book they
critique; and most of them base their criticism
upon the fact that the translators have attempted
to put the original meanings toward gender into
this Bible.

When the TNIV comes out with the whole Bible,
if there has been no real fault found in it, I will
have one.

It is not a "dumbed-down" Bible. But if it were,
I wonder: what is more important: the scholarly
level of the general populace or that they get to
know our God? When we stand before him,
His question is not going to be, "What is your
real reading level--now, really?" It is going to
be, "Do you know my Son?" How shall the
people know Him if the ones with lower reading
levels cannot read and understand His book?
I would not hesitate, for example, to give them an
NIV.

Fact is that I even keep a few of those Story
Bible(s) around for the purpose of giving them
to adults who cannot read adult-level books. I
am not ashamed of that. This, should you not
know, is a Bible written in comic book form, with
pictures and word balloons.

Everyone does not have the gift of great intelli-
gence and many have lower reading levels; shall
we relegate them to be lost just because they can
not read a certain Bible? I think not!

[ September 28, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

There are many many bible scholars who have stated that this is not an accurate translation....I could list some of them. They have studied and do know exactly what they are talking about. I don't think any of them have said it is dumbed down,but there are many changes that are not correct to original word meanings,etc. I respect and listen to these men. Actually there was a sheet passed out in our church with about 100-200 men's names on it that said,this translation should not be a respected one and we should not buy it.

Just my thoughts on the topic. I will stick to me new American Standard and KJV...

 

It is true that Christian parents have the duty to instruct their children. However, what about the thousands of unsaved children and adults who cannot understand bibles such as the KJV? Isn't it the duty of the church to give these people the gospel in a way that they can understand it?

I am a elementary school teacher in the public school system, and I know that, good or bad, most of the children I teach would have a great deal of difficulity understand "old English."

I'm not saying throw out the KJV; I'm saying is there not a place for more than one translation?

 

Certainly disputes about Bible Versions often deteriorate into petty, quarrelsome bickering. But in the case of the TNIV, I believe that most of the concerns that I've heard raised have been legitimate. This has been posted on this forum before, but here is a link to a list over over 100 christian leaders who have voiced genuine concern about the wording and intent of the TNIV.

http://www.no-tniv.com/statement.html#signatories

There are certainly names of men here who have distinguished themselves for their commitment to authentic biblical scholarship. We would do well to give heed to their concerns on this issue.

 

Timothy --

Certainly, there are a few names on that list of
men and women I appreciate, but that does not
make them either right or scholarly. Some have
even regretted being on the list, now published.

When the KJV came out, it certainly drew is list
of critics, some of whom were scholarly and
some of whom were not, as did the NASB and
other translations.

This is merely history repeating itself again,
and again, and again . . . .

 

Timothy,

Thanks for posting that link,that is similar to the warning we received.

 

Bible Translations

I find some of the negative comments about this latest version of the NIV to be born out of ignorance and these types of comments make it hard to have a good discussion.

Before making any comments for or against this version of the NIV wouldn’t it be prudent to get a copy and read it first. Deciding not to read it or buy it when it comes out based on a list of men that say so or some poorly worded web site is foolish.

Do you know what textual criticism is? What different versions of any Bible version is all about. The KJV is a good literal Bible translation as is the NASB, both based on the same translation. The NIV has always been a good hermeneutical version. We should all be interested in hermeneutics; this is just what Jesus did and the original gospel writers talking, the good news to the people of their time. We have a duty to bring the good news to our generation in a hermeneutical way, so they can relate to it.

Before anyone condemns this NIV blindly it would be a good idea to learn New Testament Greek and understand textual criticism or maybe research some of the manuscripts that most of your Bibles are translated from, like P75 or P35 and so on. Then you can make an informed decision.

-Garret

 

While I can read Koine Greek, I am certainly not a scholar in this area...very few of us are. For most laity, this issue is confusing. On one side, J.I. Packer, who is against the TNIV. On the other, the renowned Anglican scholar John Stott, who endorses it. Which way to go? Good men on both sides. Fine evangelical/conservative scholars with opinions on both sides of the aisle, and the arguments are, frankly, too 'deep' for the average layman. Personally, I lean toward Packer's view here*, but also don't believe that every change brought to the TNIV is a negative one. Changing 'brothers' to 'brothers and sisters', for example, is fine with me. Changing 'he' to 'the one' or 'they' is also fine. But sometimes 'gender-neutralizing' a passage diminishes the original author's/Holy Spirit's intent. Perhaps the TNIV authors will heed some of the valid criticisms and revise the TNIV in time for the publication of the entire TNIV Bible. (*I also don't want to have to buy another Bible version, nor do I want to spend more money on Bible software!)

 

The TNIV is not a gender-neutral Bible; the
translators have attempted to make it gender-
specific.

[ September 29, 2002, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

The TNIV already received bad publicity when many Bible scholars complained that the authors have attempted to "remove gender" as an issue in many of the verses. I must admit that the verses they used for examples make me nervous about the entire Bible.

The standard NIV is not my favorite translation and I do study Greek and Hebrew.

Somebody''s remark above about "dumbing down the Bible is okay" because our generation cannot read a higher level of English, such as the ESV. If it is true that the books are "dumbed" down a certain amount to make for easier reading, then this needs to be noted in large letters at the very beginning----why? Because in order to use simpler words than the original documents, you cannot have an accurate translation, no matter how hard you try. Yes, I know there is a balance between "thought for thought" and "word for word", but a limitation on the translation would make it more of a paraphrase, like the "living Bible". I would prefer a children's book with Bible stories for small children and let them use a good translation. Maybe our weak school systems who apparently cannot teach reading today can benefit from a Bible written at the level of the original documents---which, by the way, is not all THAT difficult---especially considering many authors of the New Testament used Greek as a second language "for example". If the TNIV is to be accepted among conservatives, it must be a GOOD TRANSLAATION and not one that contains the "opinion" of the translators---the Holy Bible has no room or need for editorializing except in "study books" or sidelines in "study-bibles".

One problem I have always had, and this may not even be an issue because I do not know the "overhead" of the translator, but the licensing fees for the NIV have never seemed to be within line of other companies that translate the Word---They seem to be more profit motivated. Simply compare the costs of adding in the NIV to your Bible computer program and compare it to other licensing fees for current translations. Whether or not this bears any weight in the subject matter, I don't know, but it simply appears as yet another warning sign in my humble opinion.

 

If you were referring to my post, you have com-
pletely missread and misconstrued my point.
It would be a good idea to go back and read
what I really said before critiquing it.

Again, if you are referring to my note, you need
to go back and read what I really said. I was not
saying that the TNIV is a "dumbed-down" Bible.
I never said that at all--anywhere. I was res-
ponding to another who decried it as a "'dumbed-
down" edition. This is not the idea of the TNIV.

This is an amazing statement to me. All people
do not have average or above intelligence. All
people cannot read as well others can. I thank
my God for the simpler Bibles that are out here:
The Picture Bible (for the youngest and for those
most challenged), the Philips Bible, the NIV, etc.

If, indeed, you can read Hebrew and Greek, you
know that every English Bible is both translation
and editorial of the ancient languages.

[ September 29, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

I guess I see it a different way....I appreciate the warning. Yes,my husband and I can study and make up our own minds,but when you have people like John MacArthur,John Piper,and guys of this caliber giving a warning,it is one I listen to and say thank you. They are only doing it to protect us and help us. They have never said avoid the NIV,NASB,or others...it is only with this one that there seems to be a problem. We have studied the greek and Hebrewof many words and we will continue to do that in our study. It is helpful to know the meanings and wroters intent in their writings. I appreciate the study of these people and appreciate their guidance on these kinds of issues.

 

Good advice, Molly