Why I love the TNIV

[tinytim]

Having just received a new TNIV last week.. I wanted to say, I really like it.

And I wanted to give others the chance to point out it's positive points.

It has been slandered by some since it's inception in 2001.. some have gone to great lengths to slander this word of God. Even to misquoting some of it's verses..

I like it because, while reading it, the scenes come alive in my mind.

I have had a lot of fun reading it this week, and can't seem to put it down.

 

[Baptist4life]

Having just received a new TNIV last week.. I wanted to say, I really like it.

And I wanted to give others the chance to point out it's positive points.

It has been slandered by some since it's inception in 2001.. some have gone to great lengths to slander this word of God. Even to misquoting some of it's verses..

I like it because, while reading it, the scenes come alive in my mind.

I have had a lot of fun reading it this week, and can't seem to put it down.

OK...the title of your thread was "Why I LOVE the TNIV".........so which is it?? :laugh: :laugh:

 

[tinytim]

It's God's word so I love it!...

I like it also...

Ever met someone you had to love.. but didn't like?

Can someone say "family reunions"... lol

 

[Baptist4life]

It's God's word so I love it!...

I like it also...

Ever met someone you had to love.. but didn't like?

Can someone say "family reunions"... lol

Oh I know that feeling! :laugh:



BTW, I was just "pullin your leg"!:thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Thanks For This Thread TinyTim

The much-maligned TNIV is an excellent translation of the Word of God.It hits the center-point between the NASBU on the left,and the NLTse on the right.(I'm not referencing politics here -- just those famous graphs of English Bible translations).

The TNIV is the all-round Bible version.It has wrongly been categorized as a dynamic-equivalent translation.However,it's neither a full-fledged formal-equivalent nor a functionally-equivalent version.It maintains a balance -- or a mediating position as some have said.

The NLTse of 2004 (this applies even more with the latest revision) is on the low end of the so-called dynamic-equivalency versions.The TNIV does not occupy that place.

I constantly see even 'experts' on translation lumping the TNIV in with the likes of the TEV (GNB),CEV and NCV.That's just plain sloppiness and a large dose of dishonesty.

With the revision of the NIV,now called the TNIV it moves a bit further left on the graph.Here's how I would place some of the versions:

NASU,ESV,NRSV,HCSB,TNIV,NET Bible,NAS,NJB,REB,NLTse

I'm sorry for not spacing them out more.But you can see that I believe that the TNIV is right in the middle.When I get the opportunity in the future I will see how the ISV figures in all of this.

Wayne Grudem & Co. have done everything in their power to besmirch the TNIV.And in consequence have been on a tear to advertise the stellar qualities of their fav -- the ESV.It's supposed to be quite accurate and uses eloquent English.I don't find that to be the case.I have devoted a number of threads to this issue.As far as I am concerned those who sing the praises of its beautiful English are not reading very carefully.For the most part it reads awkwardly.I guess the more ungainly a translation -- it must qualify somehow as very accurate.

Yet despite the cumbersome English of the ESV it is closer to the translation style of the TNIV.The former uses slightly less dynamic-equivalency than the latter.You wouldn't know that from the ESV publicity machine though.The two translations are touted as being worlds apart.

Actually the TNIV could rightly be described as using an 'essentially-literal' approach.It could also be described as using 'optimal equivalence'.The characteristics of both translation methods as found in the intoductions of the ESV and HCSB can certainly be applied to the TNIV.

 

[Rippon]

The much-maligned TNIV is an excellent translation of the Word of God.It hits the center-point between the NASBU on the left,and the NLTse on the right.(I'm not referencing politics here -- just those famous graphs of English Bible translations).

The TNIV is the all-round Bible version.It has wrongly been categorized as a dynamic-equivalent translation.However,it's neither a full-fledged formal-equivalent nor a functionally-equivalent version.It maintains a balance -- or a mediating position as some have said.

The NLTse of 2004 (this applies even more with the latest revision) is on the low end of the so-called dynamic-equivalency versions.The TNIV does not occupy that place.

I constantly see even 'experts' on translation lumping the TNIV in with the likes of the TEV (GNB),CEV and NCV.That's just plain sloppiness and a large dose of dishonesty.

With the revision of the NIV,now called the TNIV it moves a bit further left on the graph.Here's how I would place some of the versions:

NASU,ESV,NRSV,HCSB,TNIV,NET Bible,NAS,NJB,REB,NLTse

I'm sorry for not spacing them out more.But you can see that I believe that the TNIV is right in the middle.When I get the opportunity in the future I will see how the ISV figures in all of this.

Wayne Grudem & Co. have done everything in their power to besmirch the TNIV.And in consequence have been on a tear to advertise the stellar qualities of their fav -- the ESV.It's supposed to be quite accurate and uses eloquent English.I don't find that to be the case.I have devoted a number of threads to this issue.As far as I am concerned those who sing the praises of its beautiful English are not reading very carefully.For the most part it reads awkwardly.I guess the more ungainly a translation -- it must qualify somehow as very accurate and eloquent.

Yet despite the cumbersome English of the ESV it is closer to the translation style of the TNIV.The former uses slightly less dynamic-equivalency than the latter.You wouldn't know that from the ESV publicity machine though.The two translations are touted as being worlds apart.

Actually the TNIV could rightly be described as using an 'essentially-literal' approach.It could also be described as using 'optimal equivalence'.The characteristics of both translation methods as found in the intoductions of the ESV and HCSB can certainly be applied to the TNIV.

TCGreek started a thread with the same subject in mind.So I just thought I'd continue TinyTim's thread on the same theme.

 

[Marcia]

I am wondering if you think a flow is interrupted from John 2.24-25 to John 3.1 in the TNIV because it has "them" instead of "man" in v. 24

First, note the word "man" in v. 25 and vv. 1 and 2 in the NASB.

24But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

TNIV
24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.
25 He did not need human testimony about them, for he knew what was in them.
1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him."

"Them" and "he" seems to take away the force of using "man" in v. 25 and sounds less elegant, as well as the TNIV use of "people" instead of "men" in v. 24.

I am not trying to argue; I just think is an interesting observation. I prefer the way the NASB reads. Btw, the NIV uses "man" like the NASB, except it has "he" in v. 2.

 

[TCGreek]

I am wondering if you think a flow is interrupted from John 2.24-25 to John 3.1 in the TNIV because it has "them" instead of "man" in v. 24

First, note the word "man" in v. 25 and vv. 1 and 2 in the NASB.

24But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

TNIV
24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.
25 He did not need human testimony about them, for he knew what was in them.
1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him."

"Them" and "he" seems to take away the force of using "man" in v. 25 and sounds less elegant, as well as the TNIV use of "people" instead of "men" in v. 24.

I am not trying to argue; I just think is an interesting observation. I prefer the way the NASB reads. Btw, the NIV uses "man" like the NASB, except it has "he" in v. 2.

I tend to agree, but the NLT does a better job than both the TNIV and the NASB on these verses.

 

[Marcia]

I tend to agree, but the NLT does a better job than both the TNIV and the NASB on these verses.

Thanks for noticing and commenting!

But the NLT somehwhat loses the force of "man" in those verses by using "mankind":
But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature. 25 No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like.
1 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”


It's especially noticeable if read aloud. "For He Himself knew what was in man....Now there was a man of the Pharisees..."

I still like the NASB better.

 

[John of Japan]

The TNIV is the all-round Bible version.It has wrongly been categorized as a dynamic-equivalent translation.However,it's neither a full-fledged formal-equivalent nor a functionally-equivalent version.It maintains a balance -- or a mediating position as some have said.

Funny, Greek and Hebrew profs teach their classes that it is a classic example of dynamic equivalence.

Actually the TNIV could rightly be described as using an 'essentially-literal' approach.It could also be described as using 'optimal equivalence'.The characteristics of both translation methods as found in the intoductions of the ESV and HCSB can certainly be applied to the TNIV.

Anyone categorizing the TNIV this way would be wrong. Even the NIV translators were said to "have striven for more than a word-for-word translation" (preface to my 1983 NIV). It is not an essentially literal translation and is certainly not an optimal equivalence version.

But tinytim wanted praise for the TNIV. I admit I haven't read it, but I read the NIV twice back on our first furlough in '86. At that time I predicted that it would be a long-lasting, popular version. The reason is that they took an extra step after the translators finished, and had English scholars go over it for improvements in style. This was an excellent move, and resulted in a highly readable version. However, I quit reading the NIV and am not interesting in the TNIV because (1) I found numerous places in the NIV NT where the renderings were not true to the Greek. (2) I prefer versions based on Byzantine/Majority texts. Sorry, Brother Tim!

 

[Chessic]

I just picked up a copy of the TNIV last week and started reading it as well. I, too, like it, but I find some of its word choices pretty bad stylistically. Using "human beings" instead of "man," "mankind," "people," or "humans" is pretty awkward. Ok, so they think "man" is sexist and inaccurate to modern readers; while I disagree, I can live with changes if they are suitable. While "human beings" is long and awkward--replacing a 1-syllable word with a 4-syllable phrase, causing an interruption in the flow of the English, can't be good--there is also the fact that "human beings" is redundant: all humans are beings.

Also annoying is "Adam made love to his wife..." used twice that I've noticed so far. "Making love" is a currently common expression, but one that reinforces a cultural notion that love is something that men and women "make" through sex. Let's support godly definitions of love, as found in 1 Cor 13, and use another phrase. If "lay with" is too old fashioned, "slept with" is an option, using a current phrase, but not supporting a worldly view of love.

Those are really the only 2 bits that have annoyed me so far. Overall, I like the translation, though I am still new to it. If this is all I can find to complain about when I have read it more thoroughly, I'll be happy with it indeed.

 

[Keith M]

The TNIV is the all-round Bible version.It has wrongly been categorized as a dynamic-equivalent translation.However,it's neither a full-fledged formal-equivalent nor a functionally-equivalent version.It maintains a balance -- or a mediating position as some have said.

Funny, Greek and Hebrew profs teach their classes that it is a classic example of dynamic equivalence.

Actually the TNIV could rightly be described as using an 'essentially-literal' approach.It could also be described as using 'optimal equivalence'.The characteristics of both translation methods as found in the intoductions of the ESV and HCSB can certainly be applied to the TNIV.

Anyone categorizing the TNIV this way would be wrong. Even the NIV translators were said to "have striven for more than a word-for-word translation" (preface to my 1983 NIV). It is not an essentially literal translation and is certainly not an optimal equivalence version.

Amen, Bro. John of Japan! Preach it!

 

[TCGreek]

I use the TNIV and I read Greek at a decent level and I find the T/NIV to be more formal than people really know.

I can't say the same for the OT.

 

[John of Japan]

I use the TNIV and I read Greek at a decent level and I find the T/NIV to be more formal than people really know.

I can't say the same for the OT.

TC, any DE translation is going to translate fairly literally in many places. However, when difficulties come in the text a DE translation is going to take a different approach than a translation using a literal method.

I'm starting a thread on how to know a DE translation I hope you'll participate in.

 

[Rippon]

TC, any DE translation is going to translate fairly literally in many places.

Does the CEV,TEV and NCV "translate fairly literally in many places"?! No,they do not.

The NLTse which is on the low end of functionally-equivalent versions does so a bunch.

The ESV translates with a great deal of dynamic renderings while remaining largely in the formally-equivalent camp.

You really need to distinguish between the actual translational methods that various versions employ.

However, when difficulties come in the text a DE translation is going to take a different approach than a translation using a literal method.

Again,you have trouble identifying what the really dynamic versions are.

Do you acknowledge that difficulties come into the text of so-called literal versions?

 

[Rippon]

There are now several threads in which I could have posted the following.But I'll do it here.This is from : The Challenge Of Bible Translation by Scorgie,Strauss and Voth.It's within chapter two by Kenneth Barker :Bible Translation philosophies With Special Reference To The New International Version (page 61).

"The importance of clarity in Bible translations is obvious.Yet,the CBT did not want to make the mistake -- in the name of clarity -- of stooping to slang,vulgarisms,street vernacular, and unnecessarily undignified language.Clarity, then,must be balanced by dignity,particularly since one of our objectives was to produce a general, all-church-use Bible. Some of the dynamic-equivalence versions are at times unnecessarily undignified...
... when we produced the NIV,we wanted accuracy, but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty, but not at the expense of clarity; and we wanted clarity but not at the expense of dignity. We wanted all these in a nice balance. Did we succeed? Rather than be restricted to using descriptive terms like formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, paraphrase, and the like,in answering this question,it may be more helpful to note the distinctions John Callow and John Beekman* make between four types of translations: highly literal,modified literal,idiomatic,and unduly free.Their view can be diagrammed like this:

Unacceptable / Acceptable

highly literal / modified literal and idiomatic


Unacceptable

unduly free


In their classification system the NIV,in my opinion,contains primarily modified literal and idiomatic renderings,though with a greater number of idiomatic ones. To sum up,there is a need for a new category in classifying translations -- a classification I'd call a mediating position.



* Translating The Word Of God,23,24.

 

[Rippon]

Double error.The system is slow.I waited more than a minute and pressed the button again -- this is what happened.

 

[Rippon]

Here we go again.

 

[TCGreek]

TC, any DE translation is going to translate fairly literally in many places. However, when difficulties come in the text a DE translation is going to take a different approach than a translation using a literal method.

I'm starting a thread on how to know a DE translation I hope you'll participate in.

John, What kind of difficulties do you have in mind? A sample?

 

[TCGreek]

There are now several threads in which I could have posted the following.But I'll do it here.This is from : The Challenge Of Bible Translation by Scorgie,Strauss and Voth.It's within chapter two by Kenneth Barker :Bible Translation philosophies With Special Reference To The New International Version (page 61).

"The importance of clarity in Bible translations is obvious.Yet,the CBT did not want to make the mistake -- in the name of clarity -- of stooping to slang,vulgarisms,street vernacular, and unnecessarily undignified language.Clarity, then,must be balanced by dignity,particularly since one of our objectives was to produce a general, all-church-use Bible. Some of the dynamic-equivalence versions are at times unnecessarily undignified...
... when we produced the NIV,we wanted accuracy, but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty, but not at the expense of clarity; and we wanted clarity but not at the expense of dignity. We wanted all these in a nice balance. Did we succeed? Rather than be restricted to using descriptive terms like formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, paraphrase, and the like,in answering this question,it may be more helpful to note the distinctions John Callow and John Beekman* make between four types of translations: highly literal,modified literal,idiomatic,and unduly free.Their view can be diagrammed like this:

Unacceptable / Acceptable

highly literal / modified literal and idiomatic


Unacceptable

unduly free


In their classification system the NIV,in my opinion,contains primarily modified literal and idiomatic renderings,though with a greater number of idiomatic ones. To sum up,there is a need for a new category in classifying translations -- a classification I'd call a mediating position.



* Translating The Word Of God,23,24.

Fee and Strauss have applied the mediating to the T/NIV, and rightfully so.