new TNIV field test

[go2church]

Thats a good idea tear down the school system that knows it is in serious trouble, (just ask anyone) instead of bringing God's breathed words to people so they can understand it, make application of said word and live a changed life. The TNIV is going to bless people, change lives and be used to spread the kingdom of God, but it is not perfect, niether is your prefered translation. Why is that so hard for people to get? No english translation can really do justice to the precise greek language of the manuscripts that are translated from, serve God anyway!

 

[Molly]

Yes,serve God and study His word,that is most important. There are many acceptable translations available,so that one can do that. Why accept one that is highly questionable?

 

[Abiyah]

Molly --

Depending upon which religious and/or social
circles you choose to be in, every single Bible
that exists is very highly questionable. For
example, the KJV is very highly questionable
by some today, and it was very highly question-
able in its early days, just as is the TNIV, in some
circles. The KJV was not even allowed on the
Mayflower when the pilgrims crossed the
ocean to America.

Many dislike the NIV. I happen to be one who
dislikes this Bible. I find its translation to be too
loose. Many dislike the Amplified Bible; again,
I happen to be one and for the same reasons I
dislike the NIV. Many dislike the NASB; I happen
to love it.

The reason so many vehement remarks are out
there about the TNIV is because it is still new,
it is not on the shelves yet, and most of the
people who are complaining have not even
bothered to read what is available; they are
merely complaining because some popular
person they like has complained or gone along
with someone who has.

I also see the main reason this Bible has
gotten so much bad press as because one
particular man, who has a lot of very question-
able sway with the general Christian public,
has made this his issue and has gone after
religious leaders to back him. I know that
many people blindly back this man in his
causes without always knowing what his
agendas are. I believe this has happened with
the TNIV. That is not only pitiable, it is plainly
wrong.

[ September 30, 2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[Molly]

Who would that man be?

 

[tyndale1946]

My preference is the KJV... Personally not interested in any other translation but what others read and study is between them an God... Brother Glen

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Molly:
Who would that man be?

I was going to reply, "Molly, you are CUTE! 8o) "
but then I realized that you may be serious. It
was James Dobson.

Oh well--you're still cute. When are you going
to put your photo up and prove me right? I have
a certain image of anyone with the name, Molly.

 

[Molly]

Oh,James Dobson. I didn't know about any kind of push from any certain man.

I would like to put my picture up,but haven't...Clint has explained it to me,but we just haven't done it. Molly is my dog's name,I just use it as my username here. She is pretty cute!!!

[ October 02, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

[rsr]

Thank you, Abiyah, for naming names. And James Dobson is a renowned biblical scholar? I don't think so.

[ October 02, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Molly]

I agree that James Dobson is not who I would consider a Bible scholar....more of a psychologist,can those two even go together?????But,there are some on the list that do fit under the title of Bible scholar. So,I will heed their words for me personally and avoid this one. I think the NASB is the most accurate to the original manuscripts that is available to us today. I will stick with that. I love the wording of King James and we enjoy reading and memorizing from that one.

 

[Pastork]

Abiyah,

I do not share your opinion that the trouble with the TNIV is simply that it is new and that James dobson has "gone after religious leaders to back him". Yes, Dobson can have some very questionable ideas about some subjects, but his position on the TNIV is not one of those questionable positions. He is dead right about it. And as for those "religious leaders" who agree with him, they are not the kind of men who blindly follow anyone, especially Dobson. The reason guys like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Al Mohler and groups like CBMW have come out against the TNIV is that it is a 'gender-neutral' translation that adopts a very problematic and dangerous translation philosophy.

Pastork

 

[go2church]

Why didn't the James Dobson's of the world not cry foul when the NLT came out? How about the fact the the new Holman Christian Standard Bible is just as "gender neutral" as the TNIV. This is so silly, I can't believe that people are so upset about a non issue with other translations. this sounds just like someone arguing for using only the KJV, but the letters have changed.

 

[Pastork]

Gotochurch,

Many who are criticizing the TNIV now have been just as critical of the NLT. See, for example, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem. They are very critical of all gender-neutral translations, a list of which they include.I think that many have been more vocal about the TNIV, however, but you have to remember that the NLT does not have the influence or widespread usage that the TNIV is likely to have. And I do not recall the NLT publishers previuosly having entered into an agreement not to publish such a translation only to go back on the agreement. The TNIV publishers have done this, and many rightly feel betrayed. Also, I would point out that I and many others have not been more vocal about the TNIV, but that it has simply generated more press than criticisms of the other translations. And to the extent that you are correct that the issue surfaced with many with regard to the TNIV, I would only say, "Thank God! It is about time!" I would also add that I resent the comparison with the KJVonly position. These positions are nothing alike. Wayne Grudem, e.g., would never argue that only one translation is the word of God. To my knowledge he would not even say that the TNIV is not the word of God, only a bad translation of it at many points, and I would agree.

Pastork

[ October 03, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by garret:
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

Uh, excuse me, but, what specifically do you meant by the KJV and the NASB are based on the same translation, when both have different source manuscripts?

I'll agree with you on the lower part, but most people cannot read Hebrew and Greek (ancient) so, therefore they must rely on scholars they trust and are well known in Baptist or other Christian circles that can be trusted.

Now, coming from a point of view of the regular NIV, I can say that from the Greek point of view it is the weakest translation I have seen. It certainly is easy to read, but it does not necessarily make for the "best" Word of God. Out of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV. Based on my own studies rate the NIV as the lowest for accuracy. This will no doubt bias my opinion on the TNIV before I even start comparison with the manuscripts.

Then, there is the issue of which text form is the most accurate. Since all modern translations use a different text form than the KJV (with the possible exception of the NKJV); you must compare which source you want to consider the best. This is just a sideline when compared to my former remarks. Just something to think about....

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Pastork:
Abiyah,

I do not share your opinion that the trouble with the TNIV is simply that it is new and that James dobson has "gone after religious leaders to back him". Yes, Dobson can have some very questionable ideas about some subjects, but his position on the TNIV is not one of those questionable positions. He is dead right about it. And as for those "religious leaders" who agree with him, they are not the kind of men who blindly follow anyone, especially Dobson. The reason guys like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Al Mohler and groups like CBMW have come out against the TNIV is that it is a 'gender-neutral' translation that adopts a very problematic and dangerous translation philosophy.

Pastork

Amen, brother. Criticizing and new translation of the Bible is not the same as buying a novel to determine how well I like it. Buying it and reading it before you critique it is a poor exercise for the typical layman or woman. Abiyah, unless you personally can read the manuscripts we have available and translate them correctly---what are you going to base your opinion on? Your past Sunday School lessons? The KJV? or maybe (oh no) the NIV version?
I would rather leave that to professionals who are trusted Christians and have a good name in the field of Biblical translation. We cannot make a statement that you cannot criticize it until you read the entire Book. That is worthless where the Bible is concerned. Unless of course, you are a master translator of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

This is NOT history repeating itself. It is changing the meaning to fit social political correctness in a country who won't even allow God into its schools. God's second coming will not be a repeat of history nor will Satan's hard work before the end.

[ October 04, 2002, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Molly]

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks for your insight!

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Pastork:
Abiyah,

I do not share your opinion that the trouble with the TNIV is simply that it is new and that James dobson has "gone after religious leaders to back him". Yes, Dobson can have some very questionable ideas about some subjects, but his position on the TNIV is not one of those questionable positions. He is dead right about it. And as for those "religious leaders" who agree with him, they are not the kind of men who blindly follow anyone, especially Dobson. The reason guys like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Al Mohler and groups like CBMW have come out against the TNIV is that it is a 'gender-neutral' translation that adopts a very problematic and dangerous translation philosophy.

Pastork

Pastork --

You already know that I respect you, but on
this issue, we will apparently remain miles
apart.

First of all, the TNIV is Not gender-neutral--
far from it. Ii, personally, have never seen a
gender-neutral Bible, and I hope I never do,
but Ii have read much of the TNIV that is avail-
able.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Abiyah:


You already know that I respect you, but on
this issue, we will apparently remain miles
apart.

First of all, the TNIV is Not gender-neutral--
far from it. Ii, personally, have never seen a
gender-neutral Bible, and I hope I never do,
but Ii have read much of the TNIV that is avail-
able.

I think we are miles apart too. Since you are "reading" and what is your source of comparison?

 

[Wayne Leman]

Originally posted by Abiyah:

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.


So true, Abiyah. If we look at the measured reading level for the TNIV (approx. 7.7), compared with some other versions (e.g. CEV, NCV), there is no way one could call the TNIV dumbed-down. Even versions at reading level 6 should probably not be considered dumbed-down. I would think that that label would be reserved for versions at grade 4 and below (consider the NIrv at level 2.9). Of course, we have to be careful when talking about reading levels, since this is a technical measurement, not necessarily a measurement of what school grade 6, for instance, children will want to read.

For some reading levels of commonly used English versions, see URL:

http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm

Wayne
http://committed.to/fieldtesting

 

[Abiyah]

I usually use the NASB; it is my study Bible and
it is one of several Bibles I carry to synagogue.
I also have a working knowledge of both Hebrew
and Greek, although Ii am not a scholar in either
one. When I have a question on anything, whether
it is in a Bible, a speaker, or something from a
conversation, I believe nothing until I have
checked the original languages, as best we have.
I have three Greek versions of the Bible, a
Hebrew Bible, several English Bibles translated
from Hebrew by Jews, and many English bibles.
Further, I am very familiar with the KJV.

 

[Wayne Leman]

Originally posted by Jude:
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.


Good point. An important arbiter in many cases like this is to consider the area of scholarship of the person stating an opinion. Ask important questions such as: Does this person have training in the Biblical languages? Does this person have training in Bible translation? Has this person ever worked on a Bible translation committee? Does this person have particulary strong ideological ties to a particular organization that might influence their viewpoint on how the Bible should be translated?

For instance, I happen to like Chuck Colson and Dr. James Dobson. But both men have openly stated that they have no training or expertise in the Biblical languages or theology. This does not disqualify them from working with scholars to learn more about the TNIV issues, as both have done, but it does mean that when they speak we need to remember that they are dependent on second-hand information, and not speaking as scholars in the field to which they are speaking. We need to carefully examine the qualifications of each person who makes public statements about anything. Those who are well trained in the Biblical languages, exegesis, and Bible translation methodology are best qualified to speak on issues regarding Bible translation. I am implying nothing about either side in the TNIV debate by this statement; I'm simply emphasizing something which I would guess that most people understand to be an important truth, but we don't always act upon it. Some people, for whatever reason, don't trust medical doctors, for instance, and prefer to medicate themselves with various herbal remedies. They have the right to do so. But their herbal remedies may not be appropriate for the ailments they are treating. Only careful study can help us know what are the right things to say about each discipline.

Wayne