isn't The original 1984 NIV Considered Superior To Tniv/2011?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    wasn't that version, first one, "better" as a translation than either revisions of it since then?

    Think that is was more accurate, and easier to ubnderstand to boot...

    UNLESS there was such a need to accomodate those wanting neutral gender language factored into the Bible...

    WHY even bothering revising that Bible, as there were NO changes in the textual background being used, and not much changed other ways either?
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Define "superior."

    Receptor language is always changing, and our fine-tuned understanding of source language is changing, as well as the science of textual criticism. So these will necessitate judicious revisions to versions from time to time. Plus, sometimes translations just need an overhaul. There were some very bad translational choices in the '84 just as there were good ones. I for one am glad that some of the bad ones got thrown overboard in the TNIV and now the '11 NIV. Some good ones also got tossed out.

    So the short answer to your question is "It depends on who you ask." The translators said "no," so they released a revision, much the same as the NASB translators have done, and in a much smaller extent, the translators of the ESV.

    And, so did those of the KJV.
     
  3. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    agree that we need to "update" the language used in the bible cversion, as that DOES change over time, just look at the 1611 KJV and 1789 revision, or nas 1977 to 1995...

    Just asking IF going to all of these accomodation to "neutral gender" renderings was wise thing to do?
    Couldn't they stayed clear of that and just translate updating the languages nuances instead only?
     
  4. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it begs the question: is using gender neutral (which may be a misnomer as there is gender specificity when required in the NIV, TNIV, etc.) language not being sensitive to language nuances, particularly in the receptor language?
     
  5. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, not in general. What a ridiculous question.

    Uh...gender neutrality is fine, as long as it remains true to the text. Sacred pronouns are not changed. When the text means "men" or "women" those are used. When it means "all people," or "all believers," those are used.

    Weirdness.
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Administrative note.

    Please remember that rules of the Baptist Board require grace to be shown to other posters. Thanks.
     
  7. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I'm the only other one here, I assume you're talking to me.

    There are a number of other posters here who routinely call others hateful, spiteful names and are still allowed to be here.

    All I did was talk about a concept, an idea. The reason the TNIV and the 2011 NIV have been so maligned is not as much for any textual, theological, exegetical concept as much as politics.

    All we have to do is check the record.
     
  8. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe I am defining it badly...
    My hesitation was in the area of where the translation goes beyond merely updating, but changes theological meanings...

    example...
    No problem IF a bible is translated saying that God gave us the right to be called the "children/people" of God, instead of the sons, as believe John meant people in general here, males/females...
    BUT
    If a translation is made saying jesus was/is the only begotten "child" of God, that waters down His unique status as a Son...

    basically, IF the change affects someway Theological meaning/understanding, that is my concern!
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is completely understandable.

    ___________________________________


    The moderator's note was regarding present circumstances. Other circumstances have been dealt with and will be in the future.
     
  10. sdonahue1

    sdonahue1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot abide inclusive language. I purchased a 2011 NIV, hoping for the best, and took it back. So, I ordered a 1984 from CBS, and fortunately for me, they had some 1984s available in the style I wanted. I would rather deal with the poor translations in the 1984( 'capstone', 'sinful nature' and others)which I can correct with a ballpoint pen, than a whole bookful of inclusive language.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So are you okay with the so-called inclusive language of the NLTse,NET Bible,ESV and HCSB?
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to mention the KJV in a few places.
     
  13. nodak

    nodak
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    15
    I for one prefer a gender accurate translation.

    That means if it says something to males, use a male term in english. BUT if it is addressing both genders, for crying out loud just say so.

    Hard as it might be for some to understand, Christians can be female.

    And not all speak english.

    We accept gender accuracy around the globe--or maybe I should just say accuracy.

    Why are we so hog tied defending the old english practice of the male terminology being used for generic?

    I have an idea--let's trash gender accuracy and spend several hundred years using the female for the generic!

    No? Guys might not like using a Bible that when refering to all humanity calls them women?

    Then if they are going to treat others as they want to be treated, better get on board with accuracy.
     
  14. sdonahue1

    sdonahue1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, not. I have pretty much returned to the KJV, and the NASB77
     

Share This Page

Loading...