TNIV

[StefanM]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
What's so sad about it? All it is doing is trying to be inclusive and to overcome the inherent bias in the construction of the third person singular pronoun.
-----

Why is use of he or of she, biased?

I am very proud of being a woman as God created me.
I am very happy with men as God created them.

I see men and women as compliments to one another, and I'm proud enough of who I am that I am not offended or made to feel small by words such as "he" "she." Nor do I believe that God is a woman.

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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

 

[APuritanMindset]

Originally posted by StefanM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TexasSky:
What's so sad about it? All it is doing is trying to be inclusive and to overcome the inherent bias in the construction of the third person singular pronoun.
-----

Why is use of he or of she, biased?

I am very proud of being a woman as God created me.
I am very happy with men as God created them.

I see men and women as compliments to one another, and I'm proud enough of who I am that I am not offended or made to feel small by words such as "he" "she." Nor do I believe that God is a woman.

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
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.

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.

 

[APuritanMindset]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
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.

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Proverbs 5:21

It is alleged here that the change from "a man's ways" to "your ways" misrepresents the Hebrew, which employs a "male-specific" noun, and no longer "affirms God's observation of the ways of every person."

This allegation fails to take account of the fact that second person pronouns are idiomatically used with indefinite reference to "a person or people generally: equivalent in sense to indefinite one [you can never tell!]" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1994). It also fails to take account of the space placed between vv. 20 and 21 in the TNIV, which shows that v. 21 is to be read as thematically linked with vv. 22-23 rather than with v. 20. That 'ish when used generically is not "male-specific" is shown in comments on Ps. 1:1.
...

Revelations 3:20

The use of "them" and "they" at the end of the verse is said to remove "the idea of Christ coming into an individual person's life."

This criticism fails to read the verse in context. As we have documented in our comments on Luke 17:3, the "singular" use of "they"/"their"/"them" is pervasive in modern English and accepted by the major style books (see also the Appendix). In this text, the antecedent to the pronouns "them" and "they" is the singular "anyone." This makes "them" and "they" singular.

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
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.

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.

 

[APuritanMindset]

Originally posted by StefanM:
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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
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.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: they
Pronunciation: '[th]A
Function: pronoun, plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse their, masculine plural demonstrative & personal pronoun; akin to Old English thæt that
1 a : those ones -- used as third person pronoun serving as the plural of he, she, or it or referring to a group of two or more individuals not all of the same sex &lt;they dance well&gt; b : 1HE 2 -- often used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent &lt;everyone knew where they stood -- E. L. Doctorow&gt; &lt;nobody has to go to school if they don't want to -- N. Y. Times&gt;
2 : PEOPLE 2 -- used in a generic sense &lt;as lazy as they come&gt;
usage They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun requires an antecedent, however. The indefinite they is used in all varieties of contexts and is standard.

usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns &lt;and every one to rest themselves betake -- Shakespeare&gt; &lt;I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly -- Jane Austen&gt; &lt;it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy -- W. H. Auden&gt;. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons &lt;'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech -- Shakespeare&gt; &lt;a person can't help their birth -- W. M. Thackeray&gt; &lt;no man goes to battle to be killed. -- But they do get killed -- G. B. Shaw&gt;. The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.