TNIV

He, when referring to a male, is not offensive.

She, when referring to a female, is not offensive.

He, when referring to a male or a female CAN be offensive. When used generically to refer to any individual, using "he" exclusively is naturally biased toward the male sex.

He/she is quite ridiculous, but not having a sex-neutral (not neuter, mind you--a person can't be "it") third person singular pronoun is also ridiculous.

I prefer alternating between "he" and "she" when I'm writing instead of using he/she.

For example:

Whenever a college professor gives a midterm, she needs to provide an exam that fairly measures the students' knowledge. As a student takes this exam, he will find the exam to be far more productive.

The Father is not a woman, but neither is he a man . Same goes for the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem calling the Father "he" and the same for the Spirit because these terms are not used as generalities. We should not change them to "she" because of historical usage of the term "Father" and the corresponding tradition of using "he." Even so, we must be sensitive in this matter, explaining that the term is not intended to describe sex.

 

Just an fyi that the TNIV never refers to any members of the Trinity with a feminine pronoun.

 

He, when referring to a male, is not offensive.

She, when referring to a female, is not offensive.

He, when referring to a male or a female CAN be offensive. When used generically to refer to any individual, using "he" exclusively is naturally biased toward the male sex.

He/she is quite ridiculous, but not having a sex-neutral (not neuter, mind you--a person can't be "it") third person singular pronoun is also ridiculous.

I prefer alternating between "he" and "she" when I'm writing instead of using he/she.

For example:

Whenever a college professor gives a midterm, she needs to provide an exam that fairly measures the students' knowledge. As a student takes this exam, he will find the exam to be far more productive.

The Father is not a woman, but neither is he a man . Same goes for the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem calling the Father "he" and the same for the Spirit because these terms are not used as generalities. We should not change them to "she" because of historical usage of the term "Father" and the corresponding tradition of using "he." Even so, we must be sensitive in this matter, explaining that the term is not intended to describe sex. </font>[/QUOTE]So the BIble should cater to our politically correct, feminist-driven culture? I don't think so. We DO NOT need to be "sensitive" when speaking about who God is, we need to be truthful.

The same should be true for Scripture. When translating the Greek, we need to be true to it. I concede, there are places where "brothers" can be "brothers and sisters" based on the context, but, the TNIV does much more than what context dictates. I would not call it an "accurate and reliable" translation of the Bible at all because an "accurate and reliable" translation of the BIble, more than applying the texts to us, brings out what is in the original languages. The TNIV doesn't do this.

 

Can you identify which translation choices the TNIV "does more than what context dictates".

IBS : TNIV Passages Explained

If you choose the "All Passages" option in the "Select Passages" drop-down, you will get every instance where the TNIV is different from the NIV.

Which choices go beyond context? I'm not saying that they don't exist. I am simply asking someone to provide evidence of that claim.

 

Can you identify which translation choices the TNIV "does more than what context dictates".

IBS : TNIV Passages Explained

If you choose the "All Passages" option in the "Select Passages" drop-down, you will get every instance where the TNIV is different from the NIV.

Which choices go beyond context? I'm not saying that they don't exist. I am simply asking someone to provide evidence of that claim. </font>[/QUOTE]Here is one example:

NIV:
For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths. (Proverbs 5:21)

TNIV:
For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths. (Proverbs 5:21)

They end up placing verses together that don't necessarily go together. They are placing verse 20 with this verse rather than with verse 22 where it would make most sense contextually. If they haven't done this, they have changed how it is to be interpreted so that it is different from that of the original language.

Another:

NIV:
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

TNIV:
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. (Revelation 3:20)

In this case, they have turned signular pronouns to plural pronouns. The argument made against this on the site is silly, but this doesn't jive with the Greek, which, the pronouns are singular.

In just these 2 examples, they have either dictated how a passage is to be interpreted, and done so differently from the original language or they have made a singular word into plural. They do this many times. If you need more proof that this is a bad translation of the Bible, I can bring more.

 

Every translation has little things that we could probably disagree with the translators on. Below is the TNIV rationale for the above translation choices in which I believe they have made contextual consideration for. You are welcome to disagree with their understanding of the context, but be careful with accusations that their translations go beyond the context.

 

We need to be truthful, but we need to make sure to be careful in the process.

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

We should give consideration to Paul's words about his methodology. He spoke the truth, but his approaches differed based on his audience.

If we are speaking/writing to a politically correct, feminist audience, we need to be as politically correct and feminist-sensitive as the truth of God will allow.

Basically, when a translation's main motive is to be completely gender-inclusive, I feel that the philosophy could possibly be a bit skewed. Instead, I would propose a moderate philosophy--go as far as the Greek text or English idiom allows but no further(e.g. adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" whenever needed, but not when referring only to men, huioi as "children" when referring to a mixed group [see below for example], but not going beyond what is prudent merely to make the translation "inclusive."

[Example of a phrase beginning with huiois -dative pl. of huios in Eph. 2:2, translated as follows:

KJV- "children of disobedience"
NIV-"those who are disobedient"
NASB-"sons of disobedience"
RSV-"sons of disobedience"
NRSV-"those who are disobedient"
ESV-"sons of disobedience"

(huios literally means "son")

Is the KJV incorrect? Is it gender-inclusive and therefore a "bad translation"? Of course not, the meaning is still there. What the Greek said came out in the translation. Mission accomplished. Ditto for all of those listed.

 

I would honestly say that the KJV didn't translate the word "properly" but they didn't step away from it speaking of kids. If you look at the NIV, in that passage, they refer to those under God's wrath as "objects of wrath" rather than "children of wrath". It somewhat changes the meaning (or can easily be interpreted much differently than what the Greek intends). The NIV is dynamic equivalent rather than literal translation anyway and so it has been "pre-interpreted" if you will. The NRSV, although proposing to be literal, I would say is not the most impressive translation out there. It's over-the-top gender-inclusive. I think it best to stay as literal as possible, and the TNIV goes outside the bounds of literal by making singulars into plurals in some places and changing masculine pronouns to inclusive pronouns in places where it would be fine to just leave them be.

To Gold Dragon:

I read their rationale, and I can't say with a clear conscience that they did the right thing. While I do believe it important for the BIble to be in a language that we can understand, it doesn't do anything to help the understanding of the text by doing what they do to it. It puts it boderline paraphrase if not all out. Plus, changing a Greek singular to an English plural is just not good translation technique. I would equate that with changing the word of God, and that seems like a bad thing to be doing.

 

While most contexts use "they" and "them" as plural pronouns, they can be use in other contexts as singulars in the english language which is how the TNIV is using those pronouns in this case which is appropriate.