Report: 75 Percent of TNIV Gender-Related Problems in Updated NIV Bible

No, it's not trying to keep from offending people. It's trying to give us the best possible rendering of the heart of Scripture. We're talking about a dynamic translation here, don't forget.

This whole thing is so utterly ridiculous.

 

As the article mentioned in the OP documents, and as just a few of the examples posted in this thread show, the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English. It's not just a gender neutral thing. It's about the reader not knowing at any given spot whether the rendering accurately reflects its source.

This is not even good English, much less the best possible rendering of the heart of Scripture. At least the NRSV is written in decent English and actually includes a rendering of words in the Greek that are left out of both NIV versions.

Although the NRSV alters the masculine pronouns due to its generally consistent gender neutral stance, at least it provides a rendering of the Greek προς αυτον ("to him") which is missing in both NIV versions. (This is not an issue of textual criticism, since no manuscripts omit προς αυτον.)

Put simply, one never knows when the new NIV is accurately rendering its source. No doubt it is usually accurate, but with so many other more accurate versions available today, why should readers settle for a version that is just usually accurate?

 

As mentioned briefly in an earlier post, how is the following rendering of Romans 4:8 to be considered an improvement and "the best possible rendering of the heart of Scripture?"

First, why change "man" to "one" unless it is to remove what seems offensive to contemporary culture? The article clearly states that many such passages may apply to men and women in general, but that application and translation should not be mixed together so flippantly. In this example, the Greek doesn't even have the generic ανθρωπος ("man, person") but rather a more specifically masculine word (ανηρ).

Second, the English is confusing: the Lord will never count this one's sin against them? Against whom? His parents? His kids? His countrymen? The rendering breeds confusion, and for what purpose other than simply to avoid using the masculine pronoun "him" because it seems offensive to contemporary culture?

The new NIV simply cannot be trusted always to render things both accurately and understandably more than its predecessor or more than any number of other more accurate versions easily available.

 

No, 'anhr' is equivalent to someone,a person according to NET notes.Do you think Romans 4:8 applies to only adult males? That's absurd of course.

Yes,the word 'them" in this context is not the best word choice. In this case the rendering of the NET Bible is better:"blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin."

So the 2011 NIV usually renders things accurately as you have said.You simply have some quibbles. What versions are render things "accurately" more often? You then have the situation where one version is correct on a fairly regular basis and others in your estimation that have correct renderings even "more" often. It's a matter of degree --not kind.

 

You have to make up your mind. You are being inconsistent.

 

What you found humorous was :"In the new NIV they are no longer men." Funny,I thought the pronoun "he" meant a male.

 

Again from my last post, since you obviously didn't read this statement: "The article clearly states that many such passages may apply to men and women in general, but that application and translation should not be mixed together so flippantly."

 

Again from the post on which you based this comment, since you obviously didn't read it well: "As the article mentioned in the OP documents, and as just a few of the examples posted in this thread show, the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English." I'm putting the word you didn't read in bold so you might read it this time.

 

Can you point to one place in the NT where ανηρ is certain not to mean a male?

Bauer's lexicon shows its first and primary use to mean a man, "in contrast to woman." Its second sense: "man in contrast to boy." Third sense: "men" of a certain place. Fourth sense: "to emphasize the dominant characteristic of a man." Fifth sense: man, with "special emphasis on manliness." Finally the sixth sense indicates what you report from the NET notes, but after looking up all the passages it gives (which are few), I see none that is certain to mean "someone." The closest is James 1:12, but I see no reason why it must mean "someone" as opposed to "man" in translation based on its certain usage, and then later applied to all in general through application.

 

That's a rather strong statement. The translators of the NETR Bible,NLTse and other versions have translated flippantly?! I don't think so.

 

I read the word 'always" the first time. I was just showing your contrasting statements. At first, you say the readings in the 2011 NIV show far from the best possible renderings in English --then you say the renderings are "usually" accurate. Again,why the inconsistency?

 

I'm sorry if my words weren't clear.

Again my statement: "The article clearly states that many such passages may apply to men and women in general, but that application and translation should not be mixed together so flippantly."

This means that the article's position is that application and translation should not be mixed together as flippantly as the many examples they proffer indicate. It does not charge that the versions you mention were translated flippantly, but that they offer an application of the text rather than a translation of the text more often than is needed.

 

James 1:12,20,23 and 2:2 for starters.

 

My quote: "As the article mentioned in the OP documents, and as just a few of the examples posted in this thread show, the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English."

My quote: "Put simply, one never knows when the new NIV is accurately rendering its source. No doubt it is usually accurate, but with so many other more accurate versions available today, why should readers settle for a version that is just usually accurate?"

Both quotes are consistent and simply mean that the new NIV does not have the best possible renderings, much less even grammatically correct English renderings as the examples clearly showed, as often as other versions do.

 

I'll break it down for you.

Far from accurate = usually accurate?!

 

Again, I don't see how these must mean anything other than the certain meaning of "man" in translation, although their use there may be applied more broadly through application. The "man who endures temptation," the "anger of a man," and the simile "like a man looking at his face in a mirror."

 

I never said it was far from accurate. In case the syntax of my sentence appeared confusing, I will explain my meaning one last time.

"As the article mentioned in the OP documents, and as just a few of the examples posted in this thread show, the new NIV is so far from always exhibiting the best possible rendering in English that it cannot even be trusted always to give good renderings in English."

This means, as I said, "that the new NIV does not have the best possible renderings, much less even grammatically correct English renderings as the examples clearly showed, as often as other versions do."

 

Let's get back to the real issue.

Here the new NIV is much more confusing than the NRSV. Jesus will come and eat with "that person," and "they" will eat with him. Who will eat with him? That person's parents? Kids? Friends? The text is unclear because the translators did not want to use a simple masculine pronoun or, as the NRSV, use the second person. The translators also fail to render προς αυτον ("to him").

 

Again we have a failure to communicate here. In your original post #22 you indicated that that the 2011 NIV had far from the best possible renderings in English. Later,in the same post you said no doubt it is usually accurate. Which is it? Is it far from the best or usually accurate? It can't be both. Or have you changed your mind and want to deny that you really meant that it is usually accurate? If it is usually accurate as you claimed earlier I don't see the point of your posts. You simply see other versions as having accurate renderings with more regularity than the 2011 NIV. That would mean that you are arguing for how much better something is compared with something else fractionally. That doesn't hold much weight. You are not convincing anyone that the 2011 is a whole different kind of species. In your estimation (based on your own words in post #22) some other versions are marginally better than the 2011 NIV. That's not an impressive or convincing topic.

 

No,the point of the verse in the 2011 NIV is the same as in the NRSV (although I prefer the NRSV rendering in this case).

If you get confused with the rendering in the 2011 NIV then you're not able to understand basic English that is used these days (but reaching back into the past for precedence).

Your claims are stretching at the seams.