Guess what I bought today!

Enjoy, I have had mine for several months. Overall I think they did a good job, especially with the inclusive language.

 

Well, at least I hope you bought it at Lifeway!

 

I bought a TNIV New Testament recently, also. I haven't read much of it yet, but I can tell that there were revisions other than the gender inclusive changes. Personally, I'm not all that bothered by the changes if they were done in the spirit of bettering the original NIV. All translations are revised eventually. However, if the language was altered merely to appease certain groups, or to conform to recent social trends, then I have a problem with it. Anyway, I doubt that the TNIV will surpass the original in popularity, so the "classic" NIV will still be around for a while.

 

I thought it would be a book, what else would anyone be excited about getting.

I just received Errickson's "Christian Theology";and an old foundational classic in the Creation/Evolution field called "A History of The Warfare of Science and Theology in Chrisendom" (1955) by White. Both were used books at a great price.

I haven't seen the TNIV yet but the youth group will be/is using it.

Rob

 

Not worth the paper it is printed on. The TNIV is no more God's word than the Quran or book of mormon. It changes so much, you wonder what made them stop.

Good thing you bought a paperback.

I would not be surprised if the NIV loses popularity because people see where people have logically taken the DE method of translation.

 

I'm no TNIV fan -- just the opposite; but really, how can you compare the TNIV to the Quran or BoM?

Even a poor translation of God's Word is better than a non-Christian or cultic "bible."

Don't you think that statement is a tad extreme?

Andy

 

Irresponsible..........

 

Amen, Sibling Scott Emerson.
Praise Jesus and pass the coffee

 

Well, this is my second reply attempt. After writing for 15 minutes, some kind of glitch in the board software erased my post before I could submit it! I'm starting over...

I got my copy a few weeks ahead of the official release date, through Amazon. No problems so far. In fact, I had had only two significant problems with the NIV: the extreme paraphrase/mistranslation in the margin of the first part of 1 Cor. 11, and the mistranslation of porneia in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 (such a mistranslation would ordinarily be but an annoyance, but there it leads to an entirely different conclusion than the Lord's point relating to the Hebrew betrothal custom). The TNIV fixes the first problem, making it a more usable translation.

I read a review of the TNIV by Blomberg (of Denver Seminary) that provides much interesting information. First, the TNIV, as many know, is essentially an American edition of the NIVI. The NIVI was created under pressure from the British publisher, which was losing market share to the NRSV, to which the public was responding very favorably because of its gender accuracy.

The new rendering of "the Christ" as "the Messiah" will not only sound better to Jews being evangelized, but helps in a small way to avoid the liberal idea of "the Christ Principle." I'll miss the vocative "O" but changing "saints" to other terms like "believers" will mislead only a few doing word studies (who for that purpose should be using the NASB anyway) instead of misleading a far greater number of readers holding more of the Catholic concept when they see the word "saints." Except for the matter of gender accuracy, Blomberg notes that changes in wording from the NIV to the TNIV go in a more literal direction three times as often as the other way.

Most of the changes in the TNIV had nothing to do with gender, and most were improvements in translation, according to Blomberg. I read his examples, and agree in several cases and abstain from voting on the rest at this point.

I think the main reasons this version were so opposed is because evangelicals had a sense of ownership of the NIV and felt threatened by any significant changes to it--they felt it should remain static, even as language changed, and fundamentalists freaked over what they thought was a feminist incursion rather than recognizing that the generic masculine is an archaic, soon to be obsolete, linguistic artifact, that offends many people and misleads a great many more. If Wycliffe Bible Translators came to a culture in the jungle that did not have a masculine generic, they couldn't impose it, but would have to accommodate the language into which they were translating. It's already been done with our elimination of two separate forms, one for singular (thou) and the other for plural (ye) in the second person. The Greek and Hebrew make a distinction, but we don't translate them because we no longer do: we just render both as "you." Kids no longer use a generic masculine, and neither do their teachers or professors. Ordinary people don't talk that way any more, although older persons may write that way formally. It's not poor grammar any more to follow "anybody" or "someone" with "their." English has construed some singulars as plurals for centuries and vice versa; it's nothing new. And the singular "they" goes back at least as far as Shakespeare. The generic masculine in pronouns is almost dead, but "man" and "mankind" for "humanity" and the awkward-sounding "humankind" have a longer shelf life. And admittedly, "fireperson" and "policeperson" sound as ridiculous as "chairperson," but there's nothing wrong with "firefighter," "police officer," and "chair" (which goes back centuries). Anyway, we know from context how frequently "brothers" was generic in the Bible, and therefore it is more accurate in those instances to translate the word as "brothers and sisters," especially since women today (and girls especially) will not take the passage in question as applying to them at all otherwise.

 

Not only is the TNIV 93% identical to the NIV, but of the 7% that is different, over 70% of the changes made were in the direction of more accurate translation entirely aside from the issue of gender accuracy. In other words, less than 5% of the text changed to reflect current usage of gender in English. As someone else on this thread noted, as stated in the preface to the KJV, even a poor translation of God's Word is God's Word. After all, all the mistakes in the KJV and also the archaicisms don't make it worth less than the paper it's printed on, so why should a decent current translation be so considered? Likewise, all the changes the KJV made to the Tyndale Bible, it was faulted for and made it unpopular for decades in the 1600s, but that was an unfair characterization. And the KJV was changed in thousands of places in several major revisions between 1611 and 1769--it changed so much, you'd wonder what made them stop.

You must not consider the following to be God's Word any more than the Koran, and not to be worth the paper it would be printed on:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

That was the NIV. It was also the TNIV. Since it does not differ in meaning from the KJV, then the KJV must not be God's Word any more than the Book of Mormon, and not worth the paper it's printed on... Right?

 

I'm no TNIV fan -- just the opposite; but really, how can you compare the TNIV to the Quran or BoM?

Even a poor translation of God's Word is better than a non-Christian or cultic "bible."

Don't you think that statement is a tad extreme?

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]extreme but not totally unexpected: Jude saw it coming--

8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

 

I am not KJVO. I don't even use the KJV.

The TNIV is an accomodation to liberals. Of course it will have its elements of truth. So does a commentary though.

 

It is an accommodation to changing English, and in most respects, a more accurate translation than the NIV. It's a version issued for evangelicals. Liberals have the NRSV.

 

No, liberals. Zondervan went back on their agreement (I think it is the Danver's statement).

Frankly, this demonstrates the bankruptcy of the DE format. It is only necessary in parts. If used as a whole, it is no different than a commentary.

When the Scriptures say, "If any MAN desires the office of an overseer..." and the TNIV says, "If any ONE desires the office of an overseer...", they are forcing their interpretation upon the text of Scripture and equating it with Scripture.

I know that some here do not have a problem with that, but I don't think you need to change what God actually did inspire to fit your own theological paradigm.

 

To keep things in perspective, you need only compare the TNIV with a book published around 1995 called The New Testament: An Inclusive Version. It was based on the NRSV but went far beyond that translation in battling "the language of oppression" (as the introduction called it). God as "Father" became in this version "Father-Mother." "Son of Man" became "Human One." "Son of God" became "Child of God." Masculine pronouns were never used to refer to God (no feminine pronouns either). "Lord" as a title for Christ was used rarely, "kingdom" was replaced by "dominion," and "master" was rendered as "teacher." Other changes were made having nothing to do with gender. For example, references to "the right hand of God" were altered to "nearness" or "power," in order not to offend left-handed persons. The TNIV seems very conservative by contrast.

 

The changing of the pronoun in the scenario you presented does not change the interpretation. The Message is still the same.

Your last sentence is nothing more than obloquious rhetoric. Nobody has made this statement.

 

Actually, God inspired the word tis, which is an indefinite masculine singular pronoun used generically, and whose best translation is "anyone." The 1611 KJV renders it "any man" most of the time, but virtually all more recent translations render it correctly. On the other hand, the KJV rendered correctly the masculine relative pronoun as "whosoever" that could be overtranslated "he who." They get points for that.

 

Have you even read the TNIV or are just repeating the rhetoric of Dobson and others?

 

Not all of it, but a good portion. I stand by my words.

I further demand you take back that insult of including me in the same sentence as Dobson, yuck.