End of TNIV?

Zondervan doesn't translate, they market. CBT translates, they are different entities. Also, I am a consumer, not a translator or bible publisher, I don't have anything to do with what is produced, only what I purchase, so yes the analogy works. Although admittedly I don't care what the seating capacity or gas mileage of my bible is.

There are a lot of gullible folks out there, just look at the ridiculous nick-knacks being sold in Christian bookstores these days. You seem to think that bible publishing should be a zero sum process. If that were to be the case, we would never see a new translation, it costs way too much. I prefer the latest scholarship and I understand that it costs money to get at that scholarship, so for me making money from your hard work doesn't bother me, even if it is a bible you are working on. This isn't new, folks have been doing it for centuries.

 

Lux, Bayly was bad-mouthing the TNIV and the NLTse. He has a habit of engaging in trash-talk.You do realize that he is an ESV advocate, do you not? Most of the TNIV bashers have been on the (almost) ESVO bandwagon.

Not counting the reviewers, there were three who were on the translation teams of the ESV AND the NLTse. Those men are Paul House, Robert Mounce and Gordon Wenham. Those scholars are solid. They are not in favor of "sex-neutered Bibles" as Bayly said. They are not in favor of the Emerging Church.

You are Reformed, right? Do you respect the following men?

Tremper Longman,Mark D. Futato, Douglas Green, Richard Pratt, Thomas Schreiner, Harold W. Hoehner and Moises Silva? They are among a number of other Calvinists on the NLTse translation team.

If you buy into the junk Bayly is pushing I feel sorry for you.

 

End of the TNIV? GOOD!!!!!:thumbs: 'Bout time. And if the 2011 NIV is filled with inclusive language, I feel many people will jettison it for the (H)CSB.

 

Huh, the HCSB has inclusive language as well and if you jettison over to the manuscripts you would find why they are using the inclusive language.

 

Welcome to the BB. I have numerous threads comparing various versions. In several I show the inclusive language employed by the ESV and HCSB.

If, in the originals, inclusive language is intended, shouldn't Bible versions of today be faithful in putting those things in the text? Wouldn't it be unfaithful to have exclusive readings?

 

Rippon, I respect where you come from regarding translation issues. That said, what you posted above is patently false. I can name many Pro NIV folks that felt that Zondervan and/or IBS disenfranchised them. Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, Alistair Begg, Thom Rainer, and Mark Dever immediately come to mind. All three at one point used the NIV exclusively from the pulpit (I Believe Begg and Dever still do....Rainer experimented with others before going to LifeWay). I have always wondered how truthful Zondervan and / or IBS was when they said they weren't working on a new translation but did anyway.

I'm sorry you don't want people on the translation team or advisory committees who love God's Word and want God's people to have the best translations available. That's disappointing, and not what I'd expect from you. I don't want anyone who engaged in disinformation campaigns. None that I refer to or am thinking of are of that ilk. I hope you are not making the mistake of assuming that all who would ever dare speak against the TNIV were such, because this too would be patently false.

 

I meant the big names who have regularly bashed the TNIV even before it was released.Ironically, most have been ardent ESV-advocates like Ryken, Poythress,Piper, Grudem &Co.

Don't you dare try to say that he was victimized in any way. He above all others is at fault for perpetuating falsehoods about the TNIV. He is sinfully audacious.

Again, I don't see him as a victim of disenfranchisement. I did't even know that he was a former user of the NIV. He has been behind the HCSB translation for Southern Baptists.

I agreed with his statement :"Evangelicals must be committed to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular language of contemporary people. No translation, no matter how worthy, can remain static and unchanged without the consequence of becoming dated and increasingly out of touch with the development of language."

AMEN to that.

I respect Pastor Begg. He's a user of the NIV. I think he is mistaken about the TNIV.

He's the President and CEO of Lifeway which banned the selling of the TNIV in their stores. He is not someone in whom anyone would place any amount of faith in on this matter.

I greatly respect Mark Dever. If he has used the NIV in his ministry, that's fine. If he has been against the TNIV he is mistaken.

I don't want folks like Wayne Grudem anywhere near the translation team of the 2011 NIV team. He is t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

Then stay away from Grudem, John Piper and others of that ilk.

It's a rare person who takes a reasonable approach against the TNIV. Rod Decker and a select few are some that I would deem to be non-nutcases. Just about everyone else who has spoken out against the TNIV has been deliberately,sinfully, wrong on the issue. It's not a matter of misunderstanding -- deliberately, sinfully wrong in perpetuating falsehoods about the TNIV and its team of translators.

 

Some Examples Of Disinformation

Wayne Grudem :

"I'm delighted to see they have realized the TNIV was simply never going to be accepted by the Christian public who value accuracy in translating the word of God. I'm thankful for their honesty."

Disgusting. The marketing of the TNIV is in question -- not the translation itself. It is an accurate translation.

Vern Poythress:

"... the integrity of the word of God is at stake. The TNIV fails at crucial points to maintain that integrity. The rejection of the TNIV is important for the spiritual health of the people of God."

It's Hugh Broughton back from the dead! That statement of Poythress is repugnant.

 

Rippon wrote:

I'll come back to this at the end, because it's foundational, if you will.

Please show the falsehoods he spread about the TNIV. All I saw was that he questioned translation choices in the TNIV. I have a couple of journals on my shelves where he has done this. I don't see him doing a KJVO style hit job. To call him "sinfully audacious" is appalling. It's out of character for you IMHO. You're better than that, Rippon.

I fear your lack of knowledge of these men is clouding this. Dr. Mohler was a user of the NIV. He also used the NASB heavily and has espoused the ESV since its release. I have not heard him one time say anything well of the HCSB nor privately. Maybe he's quoted somewhere toting the party line, but it's down the list of his translations. I do know that he felt betrayed that IBS/Zondervan seemed to agree to the Colorado Springs agreement, all the while knowing they never really meant it.

He was an ardent NIV man long before he got to Lifeway, and publicly aired his frustrations with how he was given the cold shoulder by TNIV folks and IBS long before he got to Lifeway.

I think this is the crux of the matter. You deem any criticism about the TNIV....ANY CRITICISM...as unjustified. In this way, you are ironically taking a page from the KJVO playbook I am sure some hate the TNIV just because. However, I've met few of these folks. The folks I refer to here and others are folks who have had legitimate translational issues with the TNIV (and do so with other translations, as well, a fact you seem to either be ignorant of or are deliberately avoiding). No translation is above scrutiny. There's where we disagree. You believe the TNIV is above such. I don't think the ESV, TNIV, NIV, NASB, etc. are beyond a need for improvement. I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise. I'm also sorry you seem to take such freedom to assasinate the character of those who would disagree with your ardent support of the TNIV or who dare not use or endorse the TNIV. Your most telling statment is this:

Regardless of their concerns, they're guilty if they speak a word negatively about the TNIV. I believe that your position is uncharitable and illogical. I respect your contributions on translational issues. I do regret the level to which you'll go (dare I say, stoop) to defend the TNIV.

You and I often find ourselves on the same side of issues, and I hope we remain respectful allies as we defend God's Word against attackers. So let me close with a point of agreement:

Amen.

Thanks, friend

 

Two fine Christian gentlemen for whom I have much respect. I agree with them and the above statements. The TNIV was a disaster, and it was NOT accepted by most Christians---only by the elitists and the progressives as such. I would like to see the both of them on the translation team for 2011. In the meantime, I have returned to the KJV, which, by the way, needs some updating.

 

As far as I know the KJV took years for most Christians to accept.

 

Then you have no discernment if you agree with those statements of theirs.

I would venture to say most Christians don't even know about the TNIV. It helped the Pro-ESV'ers to advance their TNIV boycotting.

Nonsense.

Well, your wish will not come true. The 2011 NIV will be much like the TNIV. Besides, the NIV translation team is not governed by the Colorado Springs Guidelines. Grudem and Poythress are signatories and big supporters of that document.

Way to go retro.

 

No discernment? Come on. His only sin is having the tamarity to disagree with you

I agree with you in your criticism of the assertion that only "elitists and progressives" accepted the TNIV. That's balderdash.

True that Biblica / CBT has made it fairly clear that they will not be goverend by the Col Springs Guidelines. That said, I don't know if they will make the mistake of ignoring all signatories, if for no other reason than for marketing. Ken Barker is former head of and current member of CBT is he not, and he signed the CSG. Ron Youngblood is another current CBT member who signed the CSG.

Didn't a couple of CSG signatories work on the NLT?

And R. Lawson, the KJV has been updated many times. KJ21, NKJV, et.al.

 

Hi, Tom.

I know the KJV has been updated many times. I apologize if I wasn't very clear in my post. I meant after the KJV was released it took a while for most Christians to accept.

I may be wrong, but I believe I read about this on this forum. I'm a long time lurker and only recently have I started to post more often.

In Christ,
Robb

 

You are correct. The KJV did not gain popular approval for quite some time for various reasons.

 

The statements by Grudem and Poythress which I quoted are absurd. Anyone who goes along with that junk is evidencing little to no discernment.

I'm glad we agree on that much.

 

This is another example of Wayne Grudem's sinful absurdities. He wrote the following conclusion in a World magazine article dated 2/26/05.

In many hundreds of places, then, the new words in the TNIV do not accurately reflect the meaning of the words God originally caused to be written, and thus are not the words of God. They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible.

 

In my post #47 I quoted Dr. Mohler favorably. It was a section from his blog entitled:"The NIV Announcement -- A Statement (9/1/09).

Well, here's another part of the very same article with which I take great exception. Read carefully and you'll note the "sinful absurdity" tendency which already afflicts Grudem,Poythress &Co.

"The issues of concern related to the NIV remain. For the sake of the Gospel, we must hope and pray that we do not confront these same issues in the updated TNIV." [ I added the boldfaced lettering.]

 

First, thanks for calling me out on misspelling temerity.

Second, "sinful absurdities?" Come on, Rippon. You know better than this.

Dr. Mohler and Dr. Grudem have legitimate opinions based on their understanding of syntax and translation (what Gospel issues are at stake relative to Mohler's comments are not clear). Whether we agree with them or not is the matter. To you, if you agree with them, then the gloves come off and all manner of accusation is fair game. To agree with you is to be on the side of eternal verities :tongue3: You sure you're not KJVO? :smilewinkgrin:

Seriously, I simply refuse to engage in the sweeping general attacks you make. It remains that, regardless of anyone's concerns, they're guilty in your mind if they speak a word negatively about the TNIV. I'm deeply sorry you feel that way since you rightly critique those who feel that way about other translations. I guess I'm just not part of the TNIVO crowd and never will be. Should we give you the name of Ripponlinger? :tongue3:

Please accept the humor intended here :thumbsup:

 

Speaking of sweeping general attacks -- have you actually read the quotes by Grudem, Poythress and Mohler?

Let me give you the crux of what they said regarding the TNIV.

Grudem : "... human words that men have substituted for the words of God."

Mohler: "For the sake of the Gospel, we must hope and pray that we do not confront these same issues in the updated TNIV."

Poythress : 'The rejection of the TNIV is important for the spiritual health of the word of God."

In a moment of lucid thinking please reconsider your support of these men with respect to the issue of the TNIV. Would you have any kind of objection with that type of language aimed at your valued translations?...Just wondering.

To make a stab at some sort of point you call me a TNIVO'er. I guess you are not as familiar with my threads as you claim.