Any Thoughts on the T.N.I.V.

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Roy1, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. Roy1

    Roy1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone any thoughts on the T.N.I.V. Today’s New International Version?

    Do you see any dramatic changes in its content? I have seen a number of dramatic changes from the NIV, none for the better. The all inclusive language and the removal of a number of the previously footnoted verses stand out.

    Any thoughts, good or bad?
     
  2. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Do a search on this has been dicussed before.

    Also here is a website to look at

    TNIV information

    I use it just about everyday.
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why the need for yet another NIV?
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is by design a dynamic equivalency translation, strike one.

    It is intentionally gender neutral where God was not, strike two.

    It was designed with popular appeal, rather than faithfulness to the texts, in mind, strike three.

    I would neither use nor recommend it as long as vastly superior translations are available.
     
  5. Roy1

    Roy1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Others may have discussed the topic, but does that make it irrelevant for me to discuss it?

    If I where happy with the NIV, why should it be changed this much? I must admit if I where not so strong in my faith, this new version would shake it. It looks like I cannot depend on what I read in the word of God, because it has changed so much! Surely one of these must be right, but which one? I have four NIV’s and the new TNIV, but which way now?

    Any further thoughts?
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. Get a NKJV, KJV, or NASB.
     
  7. Roy1

    Roy1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Scott,

    I did not say that I did not have any other version, but what do we do with this dramatically different one?

    Roy
     
  8. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Roy,

    There are several sites reference the TNIV on the net via a search engine. I am including one here as it gives a list of prominent Christian leaders who have refused to endorse the TNIV.

    www.no-tniv.com/

    Additionally, the Southern Baptist Convention has issued a memorandum stating that the SBC will not endorse the TNIV for use, Lifeway issued a statement to the effect that they would not sell the TNIV, and the Presbyterian Church USA issued a statement similar to the SBC.

    What I did was to copy and post these statements on our bulletin board at church, along with specific translational issues, and then at the next bible study we had church gave my opinion as to why I believe it is an abberrant translation.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Roy1: I did not say that I did not have any other version, but what do we do with this dramatically different one?

    Roy



    Ignore it.
     
  10. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Note all the changes and inundate the TNIV translation team with demanding to know legitimate reasons for the changes. In the case of them being gender neutral where God isn't, there is no legitimate excuse - so I would call them on that and demand that they change it back to the way it should be.
     
  11. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not recommend the TNIV. It's way too liberal!

    I personally will not recommend the NIV either. The TNIV was a step backwards.

    The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV are far better translations.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not say that I did not have any other version, but what do we do with this dramatically different one?

    Roy
    </font>[/QUOTE]If you think it is dramatically different then the witness of the Bibles you think are consistent with each other is against this one being a faithful version.

    Take it back to wherever you bought it.
     
  13. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roy1 stick with the KJV if you have a copy
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
  15. Roy1

    Roy1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi folks,
    It is interesting to see the response to the T.N.I.V.
    I am in no way trying to promote such a blatant perversion of the word of God. In a world that has been desensitised to the ever increasing attack on the word of God I am thrilled to see some still have their eyes open. If people cannot hear the hiss of Satan that old serpent, saying, “hath God said,” then Christianity world wide is in grave danger.

    I can find nothing in this version to be commended. But we know that this is not the end of the story. Another version will soon be produced taking leaps and bounds down this ever decreasing slippery slope of undermining the authority of the word of God.

    The so called scholars of the TNIV have once again used their fallen finite intellect to make any discerning bible reader doubt what is or is not the word of God. This so called dynamic equivalency, is neither dynamic nor equivalent. If it were then there would have been no major changes since the last changes in the NIV.

    If this is what we have to look forward to as far as scholarship goes, then let us all make up our own versions and be done with it. Let every man do that which is right in his own eyes! To take such a stand was not right in the days of the Judges and neither is it right today. But if I call my self a scholar, it looks like I can get away with it.

    We can now see how thin the veneer of scholarship has become; it is easy to see through.

    Roy
     
  16. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Which of the 30-40 changes from the NIV to TNIV have the sound of Satan hissing and why?

    Dynamic equivalence recognizes that the english language is a dynamic one that is constantly evolving. Pick up an actual copy of the KJV 1611 (not a KJV 1789) and see for yourself.

    As for casting doubt, I think it is much healthier to be constantly questioning and re-evaluating our understanding of the bible (english or greek/hebrew) through the guidance of the Holy Spirit than to be unteachable and think that we have it all figured out.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Uh, I don't think that is what "dynamic equivalence" means. [​IMG]
     
  18. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Uh, I don't think that is what "dynamic equivalence" means. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. The dynamic evolution of language is not what the dynamic in dynamic equivalence represents.
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    So, are you now disagreeing with yourself? That is probably a first for this forum. Usually everybody disagrees with everybody else. :D
     
  20. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, are you now disagreeing with yourself? That is probably a first for this forum. Usually everybody disagrees with everybody else. :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not disagreeing with myself.

    The dynamic in dynamic equivalence says that finding equivalent meaning is dynamic in contrast to a strict literal translation theory that often chooses words and phrases that most closely resembles the word in the original language at the expense of choosing the words and phrases that best conveys the meaning of the original languages.

    The most common reasons for preferring dynamic equivalent readings for a specific passage are
    1) because Greek/Hebrew grammar and sentence structure can't always be expressed well using English words.
    2) there is always some meaning that is lost with literal word translations from one language to another
    Dynamic equivalence tries to recapture some of that lost meaning.

    The dynamic evolution of language, is related to dynamic equivalence in that often the word selection that is most literal isn't the best at conveying meaning because of how that english word has evolved over time in adopting other more popular meanings. But this is only one of many possible reasons why dynamic equivalent readings may be preferred in some places.

    I should also note that the translation I use most also happens to be one of the most literal translations out there, the NASB.

    [ April 15, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...