Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Steven Morrow
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 18

Posted 12/3/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6)

Greetings everyone that may read this post:

Has anyone read the Todays New International Version of the Bible. From what I understand this translation is getting alot of heat. I know alot of people, and groups are condeming it. Lifeway christian bookstore anounced they will not carry it in their store. They say it is gender neutral. I have read a great deal of excerpts from the TNIV, and consider it no diffrent than the contemporary english translation. Personally I love the NIV, and NASB, but if someone finds the TNIV helpful to read, whats so wrong with that?
Does anyone else have any comments regarding the TNIV?

Steven Morrow

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 12/3/2002 5:09 PM (GMT -6)

I’m very familiar with the NIV, but I primarily use the NRSV. I try to refer to a variety of translations in addition to the Greek text whenever I do exegesis, and so far I have found the changes in the TNIV to be helpful. Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/3/2002 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

Steve-

You have a nice attitude.

I haven't read the TNIV. But if LifeWay sells Doc's God of the Possible (which is where I bought my copy) why should they have problems selling the TNIV? And don't they sell the NRSV also? That's gender neutral.

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/3/2002 7:47 PM (GMT -6)

I have read the TNIV and I find the flak its getting over blown (and mainly from reformed persons). Its just the NIV with some changes. They've been selling it in Europe for a couple of years now.
There are no changes to gender references to God, but there are some changes that effect verses that reformed believers rely on for their particular beliefs. As such I suppose if I were reformed it wouldn't be my favorite, but I think they did a good job...by the way, you can get a free copy (NT) from the translators. I can look up the site if anyone is interested.

sboese
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 12/4/2002 3:36 AM (GMT -6)

The TNIV is GREAT! I always used to use the NRSV or NASB in preaching but now I am using the TNIV. It is gender ACCURATE not neutral (geesh as if they were trying to eliminate sex).

Ok back to writing papers...

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/4/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
There are no changes to gender references to God, but there are some changes that affect verses that reformed believers rely on for their particular beliefs.

Honorman,
You've got me curious. Can you list some of the changes that affect a Reformed reading of the text? Or do you know of source that documents how these changes are relevant to the debates surrounding Reformed exegesis?

Alan

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/4/2002 5:14 PM (GMT -6)

Steven,

We had a lengthy discussion about the TNIV on this thread:
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=873

Actually, it was about KJV-onlyism, gender-neutral translations, all kinds of stuff.

If that thread is too long, or doesn't stay on topic enough for you, there is some good info at the following web sites, pro & con respectively:

www.tniv.info/
www.cbmw.org/tniv/

In my opinion, Grudem, Dobson, and a lot of others have helped spread a lot of mis-information about the intentions of the TNIV translators/publishers. And a lot of their criticisms are really weak, both linguistically and logically.

For example, one option available to the TNIV translators to remove gender-exclusive language was to use the 3rd person, plural ("they") in place of the 3rd person, singular, masculine ("he"). They do this in Luke 17:3. "If your brother sins, rebuke him,and if he repents, forgive him" (NIV). "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender; and if they repent, forgive them" (TNIV).

Grudem says, "Trying to make they singular impoverishes English by leaving us no clearly plural pronoun." I say hogwash. We hear "they" used as a neutral, singular pronoun all the time. We might hear something like, "Everyone returned to their seats." But everyone is singular (we say "everyone is" not "everyone are") and here we use "their" in a singular sense. Or we might read something like this: "If someone wishes to apply for an immigrant visa, they need to first fill out an application form." No one, not even Grudem, would think for a moment that visa applications must be filled out in a group. No. "They" is used as a singular pronoun.

Another example. John 6:44. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" (NIV). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" (TNIV).

Grudem says, "Might easily be understood to support the neo-orthodox and Arminian view that God chooses and calls groups of people, not individuals; this is done by mistranslating two singular Greek words." But we already use "they" and "them" in a singular sense without raising mass confusion. We all realize from context when "they" is plural and when it is singular. I think arguments like these serve to confuse the debate.

The real question is, "Has English changed enough such that 'he' and 'him' are no longer neutral?" It depends on where you live, eat, sleep, etc. The answer is "no" for some communities, but a definate "yes" if you work at Intel or study at a public university or a journalist/news anchor, etc. In other words, the answer is subjective. But that does not make the TNIV "evil" just because your neck of the woods still likes nueter "he" and "him."

A really, really good book about gender translation issues is D.A. Carson's The Inclusive Language Debate (Baker, 1998).

Sorry for being long-winded. Obviously I have a lot of pent-up emotion about how this issue has been handled. But I feel better now. Thanks for reading.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/4/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6)

By the way, you can read the TNIV New Testament at www.tniv.info/bible/index.php It's an Adobe pdf file. I don't think the Old Testament has been completed yet.

And I like how Grudem says, "Might easily be understood to support the neo-orthodox and Arminian view..."

Oooooooh!!! Now we wouldn't want that, would we? I've heard that Arminian stuff is real baaaaaaaad! Can't have none of that here. (Apologies for the sarcasm, but what place does that statement have here in a discussion about translation procedure? I mean should support or lack of support for a particular theological system drive our translation decisions?)

Just lettin' off that last little bit of steam.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Edited by - payaso on 12/04/2002 10:27:19 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/4/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

Alan: Payaso pointed out one. I think you'll find others on the one of the links he posted (the propaganda one). Grudem seems to have made it his second job denouncing the TNIV. Those darn Arminians!

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/4/2002 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

What cracks me up is that Grudem seems so into his own views that alternative views simply cannot be expressed, even if they are within the realm of biblical interpretation.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/4/2002 11:45 PM (GMT -6)

Payaso:Can't have none of that here.

Tom: Eh, that should read, “Cannot have ANY of that here.”

Just joshing!

About “they” and “them.” We obviously use them in spoken where we should (according to the standard grammars today) use a singular pronoun. Very simply what’s happening is what has always been happening: Our language is changing. Languages are living things and they always change. No one can stop that. Usually it slides along quietly without notice like two tectonic plates. But when people try to incorporate the changes into writing (changes in language become established first in speaking and only later in writing), that’s where we get earthquakes!

Looks to me (taking “they” and “them” as representatives) that the TNIV attempts to take what is spoken English (by some) and make it acceptable English for everybody. It’s a tough challenge. What the TNIV has done is make the BIBLE the arena. Usually our cherished documents are the last to be touched. TNIV tossed that aside. That’s fine by me. But now you enter the fog. If “correct grammar” is what you find in the textbooks, then the TNIV is breaking the rules and using bad grammar. But it’s bound to happen. When language changes, some welcome it and some fight it. But it WILL change.

Just remember, we are all ‘Grudems’ about incorporating SOME of spoken English into a written text like the Bible. Languages change, yes. But some changes are refused across the board and never become accepted grammar (spoken or written): Will “Me and Sarah are going to the store” ever become standard written English?

I for one am a “welcomer.” (Heck, I’ve used “she” and “her” for God!) But not all changes are the result of the natural evolution of language. Some (some, mind you) may be consciously brought about by people who want their values propagated. I sometimes use “she” for God, but I wouldn’t support changing half of the occurrences in the Bible’s “Father” for God into “Mother.” Heck, I wouldn’t change a single one into “Mother.”

Payaso, where do you draw the line? You’re OK with “No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draw them.” Would you then be OK with “No one comes to me unless the Mother who sent me draw them”? I know there are different considerations behind the two (some purely grammatical, some theological). I don’t know Grudem, but my guess is that he honestly believes changing “him” into “them” will lead to changing “Father” into “Mother” and the best way to avoid that would be adopting a translation philosophy that leaves singular masculine pronouns singular and masculine.

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/5/2002 1:18 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom,

Grudem has softened some of his claims over the years concerning gender-accurate translation. At one time (1997), he actually stated that to translate adelphoi as anything other than brothers was "inaccurate" because adelphoi "means" brothers. Now he agrees, in theory at least, that adelphoi can and should be translated as "brothers and sisters" when context calls for it.

quote:
Looks to me (taking “they” and “them” as representatives) that the TNIV attempts to take what is spoken English (by some) and make it acceptable English for everybody.

I think that slightly mistates what the TNIV is trying to do. First, the "they/them" option is one technique among others for converting gender-exclusive language into gender-inclusive language. Sometimes it can getty pretty tricky making that conversion. Second, the translators are not trying to force new meanings and new grammar upon us. Zondervan has said they will continue publishing and revising the good ol' NIV alongside the TNIV. The goal is to provide a translation in ordinary, everyday English so that people can read and understand God's Word. I think the TNIV rather than launching a crusade has tried to reflect changes that are perceived to have already taken place in many circles--well, obviously not for Grudem, et. al. But for many it has.

Grudem's concern appears to be that someone reading a particular passage such as Rev 3:20 will think that such an offer is corporate and not individual. I suggest that this concern carries little weight because we already use "them" in this way without confusion.

El Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Steven Morrow
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 18

Posted 12/5/2002 6:10 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Payaso, and all others who have responded.
I Read some of the TNIV online, and found it quite helful in some areas. I read a really harsh comment on the TNIV from that (Moler)? guy. There seems to be alot of misinformation on the translation. The Christian Bookstore I work at is to scared to carry it because of all the bad rep.
Its funny I have ordered all of Docs books to sell in our store, and to promote. The only book that my manager had a problem with was SATAN AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. He didnt want to put it on the shelves because of the cover. It does have a pretty disturbing cover, but I thought it added to the affect. I mean come on its talking about SATAN AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. The cover needs t be Evil looking. Needless to say my manager resined, and now I am selling that book to.

Back to the TNIV: Now
thank for the posts

Steven Morrow

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/5/2002 7:19 AM (GMT -6)

Other than the gender reconstruction in the TNIV, is the rest of the book identical to the NIV?

For yet another version,

Starkman

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/5/2002 7:21 AM (GMT -6)

It does not bother me that Grudem and others have problems with the TNIV, or that they believe it is wrong. Rather it is that they use emotion to fan the flames AND seem (by and large) to be against it because of their (predominantly) reformed beliefs. That it affects their view of what the Bible says. Plus, there already are many gender inclusive versions that have been around for several years. The New Century Version (which Lucado backs) and the NLT both are gender inclusive. Why aren't they crying about them?

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/5/2002 2:28 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman,

There were a few other changes besides gender-related terminology. You can read about them and see some sample passages here:

http://www.tniv.info/QandA.php#5

Other than that, the TNIV text is identical to the NIV.

Honorman,

I read something once about why everyone is up in arms over the TNIV when we already have gender-inclusive translations such as NLT, etc. I think I read it in Carson's book. He gave several reasons, but the only one I can remember had something to do with the TNIV following in the tradition of such a hugely popular translation such as the NIV. Also, because of translation philosophy, the TNIV is more likely to be used for serious study and not just reading (as might be the case with the NLT). He had some other reasons, and if I remember, I'll look them up and post them tomorrow night.

Honorman, I'm still not sure what specfically you have in mind when you speak of the TNIV being used to argue against Reformed doctrines. Could you give some more detail?

I totally agree with you that emotions have been fired up by the rhetoric. That's probably what bugs me more than anything else about how this debate has been handled. To me, this is so very reminiscent of how ETS is handling the OV debate. Both have their fair share of mis-characterizations: the OV is accused of denying God's omnipotence; the TNIV is accused of promoting/being-influenced-by radical feminist agendas (which might hold more weight if they had used feminine pronouns for God, but they didn't). These two debates have become emotionally-charged, politically-motivated fire fights. I think the whole thing could be handled in a more cool-headed manner.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Edited by - payaso on 12/05/2002 9:39:54 PM

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/5/2002 3:08 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom,

There was something you brought up that I kind of danced around, and I wanted to communicate my thoughts a little more clearly.

I dodged the issue of using feminine pronouns for God--I'll save that for later. I am not in favor of doing it, but I don't have a well-staked out position. It seems the only reason for doing such at this time would be to advance a particular idealogy; it would be to introduce new usage. But I do not think that this is what the TNIV is doing when they substitute "they" for "he" and "them" for "him." They are reflecting a change that has already occurred in the language.

Even Vern Poythress, who is no friend of the TNIV, acknowledges that the use of the 3rd person, plural pronouns "they/them" for a singular antecedant has been around "for centuries." (See the latest issue of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood & references to his and Grudem's book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy).

I've been thinking about this. What would you do if you had a passage of literature that employed "he" and "him" as generic pronouns for both men and women. And say that over time, it was no longer acceptable to do this because the male-sex connotation of "he" and "him" no longer allowed those pronouns to be used in a gender-neutral sense. How would you reword the passage?

The TNIV substitutes 3rd person, plurals (they/them) when there is a singular antecendant; they sometimes substitute using 1st person, plurals (we/us); in other cases they switch to 2nd person, singular (or plural?) (you); or they might use terms like "anyone" or "the one who" or "everyone"--stuff like that. Sometimes they can get away with rewording it so a pronoun is not required at all.

I wouldn't want to be in the translator's shoes because I can see how some of those decisions would be downright tough to make. And I can see how in some cases, it will be just plain impossible to please everyone. I suppose they could heavily footnote the passages (and maybe they should) to provide clarification.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/6/2002 5:29 PM (GMT -6)

Honorman,

Okay, so I got it wrong. My memory failed me again.

Here are the real reasons Carson suggests why other gender-inclusive translations have not come under fire like the TNIV has. Of course we can only guess at such things. He lists his reasons by version:

1) Revised English Bible (and NEB)--elevated style and vocabulary distanced this version from the public, therefore no real threat.

2) Contemporary English Version--the publisher (Thomas Nelson) did not draw attention to their policy of gender-inclusive translation, so it largely went unnoticed. Same may be said for the NIrV.

3) New Living Translation--given that it follows in the footsteps of the Living Bible (a paraphrase) and that it is presented as a "thought-for-thought" translation, "most readers do not expect the same degree of rigor."

4) NRSV--this one faced a little opposition, but not much. Probably not opposed by conservatives because it was sponsored by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ (is this a 'liberal' organization?). Thus, movement towards "gender-neutral" translation was to be expected.

(The Inclusive Language Debate, pp. 22-26)

He doesn't postulate why the New Century Version avoided such criticism, but I would guess for reasons similar to those that he gives for NLT or CEV.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:53 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual