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

For some reason you don't or can't or are unwilling to get it. My post simply said that the new NIV can't even be trusted always to give good English renderings, much less the best possible rendering of the meaning. That's what the following means: "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 claim is that the renderings of the new NIV are often not as clear or accurate as those in other versions, not that they are often inaccurate.

Renderings in the new NIV can't confuse me, but the point is that it's often not as clear as the parallel renderings in other versions or even its own predecessor. And if it's a step down in quality, clearness, responsible rendering of the Greek, then why buy or even read it as opposed to other versions of higher quality, clarity, and integrity?

 

So you actually understood my posts, but pretended like you didn't. Why all the fuss?

 

Mark 1:40–42 in the new NIV

Mark 1:40–42 in the NRSV

The textual decisions of the new NIV cannot always be trusted. In this case, the only Greek manuscript (out of 1600 that have survived here) to have what the NIV renders as "indignant" is Codex Bezae from the 5th century. It's a bilingual Bible with an old Latin text, from which the reading was most likely retro-translated back into Greek at this place (as in multitudinous places elsewhere). Otherwise, no Greek manuscripts would have what is represented in the new NIV.

 

Here you are again. This is to refresh your memory. The above two quotes of yours are contradictory.

 

You are bearing false witness. I still don't understand your inconsistency.And I don't understand your quibbles when you have maintained that the renderings in the 2011 NIV are usually accurate.

 

What a more reasonable thing to state is that you disagree with some dicisions of the 2011 NIV translation team.

When someone objects to the textual decisions of the ESV for example should they say the ESV can't be trusted? Of course not.You need to restrain yourself.

The NET notes for the controversial and difficult textual variant in Mark 1:41 contain eleven lines of explanation. It is a very disputed passage. It's not cut and dry as you maintain. I looked and found a number of scholars who say that anger or indignation are better choices than filled with compassion. Check out these scholars; Joel Marcus,David Garland,Ben Witherington,Walter W.Wessel,R.T.France and J.Keith Elliot for starters.

 

Well then you have wasted a good deal of breath on the topic.

If is the operative word. You have your objections with various renderings. But there are a number of scholars who would diasagree with you.

Tossing in your 'integrity' remark doesn't evidence integrity on your part.

Quality,clearness and responsible renderings of the Greek are hallmarks of the NIV.

Just what English versions constitute your ideal possessing high quality and clarity?

 

Wow, what a rough thread.

I like a lot of what the CBMW does. It is a good ministry. I will stand toe-to-toe with anyone who says otherwise.

There are some problems in the usage of language in the NIV2010. Specifically in some of the neuterizing of masculine pronouns there is much to be concerned about. Of course let's not forget that a lot of the recent translations also do this.

Jonathan.Borland has brought up some good points of conversation. Specifically in several of his cited passages I don't know how one can move outside of the traditional rendering. I am not saying we should expand our translations where the words are obviously being used generally. For instance when I do my own translation work when I see the word ἀδελφοὶ in certain texts I naturally broaden its use to include men and women. But there are several instances where we need to be careful with our wording.

This is important and shouldn't be disregarded as foolish or pointing out trivialities.

 

There are some who will dislike the NIV 2011 regardless. That's sad.

There are those who dislike it because they have legitimate issues, and those folks will be painted as "haters." That's sad.

There are folks who just won't appreciate anything the CBMW just because they are who they are. That's sad.

Blindness to facts which leads to people making sweeping generalities are all too prevalent around here on this issue. That's worse than sad.

 

Let's see if jonathan's schoolmarm notions of pronoun agreement are followed by this "Council" in its own publications.


"Male Authority" by J. Ligon Duncan III (CBMW website):

Say what?
Everyone raises whose hand? The waitresses' hand? And "their hand" doesn't even make sense, unless the waitresses are Siamese twins. It breeds confusion, I tell you, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUN "HIS" BECAUSE IT SEEMS OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!



"Not Just Good-Housekeeping: A Case for Christian Hospitality (Part 2)" by Mrs. John Starke (CBMW website):

How grammatically odd!
Whom is everyone enjoying? One's parents? One's kids? One's houseguests?
It really breeds confusion, yes it does, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUNS "HE" and "HIMSELF" BECAUSE THEY SEEM OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!


"Biblical Womanhood" by Eric M. Schumacher (CBMW's scholarly journal):

Huh?
One is out doing their own thing?
Whose thing? His parents' thing? His kids' thing? His countrymen's thing? This breeds utter confusion, and for what purpose other than SIMPLY TO AVOID USING THE MASCULINE PRONOUN "HIS" BECAUSE IT SEEMS OFFENSIVE TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE!

Indeed.

 

If you stand toe-to-toe with anyone that means you are of the same mind. You mean stand toe-to-toe against.
It may have some redeeming aspects. But are you keen enough to detect any of its excesses?

From your vantage point possibly. But do you acknowledge that other conservative Evangelical and Reformed believers do not share your view and are just as dedicated to the Word of God as you are?

Tradional rendering doesn't necesasrily = correct wording. Consult scholarly commentaries before making your denunciations.

I'm sorry,but CBMW has devoted some precious time in the past in bashing the TNIV over many trivial items and they are doing so with the new NIV now. That's not to say that they have some legit points on some passages --but the bulk of their stuff is full of fluff.

 

Jerome,we have had and will have our disagreements, however, your post was right on the mark and I couldn't stop laughing at your insight and the irony of it all.

 

It seems you are just reverting to your normal line of defense when you can't, won't, or are unwilling to deal with the actual issues brought up. As far as the pejorative nature of the comments that ooze from your lips, I remember seeing them before in a post on Baptist Board here:

In light of who you are, I really see no reason to continue any dialogue with you. I will continue to point out the deficiencies of the new NIV, showing not how it is an unfaithful translation but rather how it is less faithful, less accurate, less consistent (the true meaning I intended when I used the word "integrity" in a recent post, by the way), and less professional than other versions.

 

You speak with a forked tongue. I was not pretending at all. You say on the one hand that the new NIV is far from accurate --then you say the opposite --that it is usually accurate. Come down to one side or the other. But it seems as if you you don't want to address the fact that you said that the new NIV is usually accurate.

Now you make it a personality issue.

You can continue to hold to your convictions and I will hold to mine. But I will say that the new NIV is usually accurate as you once claimed and now apparently want to deny.

Well pardon me. But the way you put it had the connotation of being morally suspect. Thanks for the clarification. Your particular meaning of the word integrity in the context of your negative statements certainly would suggest to the general audience that the new NIV had some kind of ethical problems.

What does that mean in your world? Your definition of words leaves something to be desired.

 

Comparing accepted English language norms with translational philosophy which may affect theology (or vice versa) seems to be a bit of a stretch. That said, a translation should strive to be readable and conform to grammatical rules as much as possible, but not at the expense of theological/translational/textual fidelity.

Used to be, this forum was pretty much dominated by "Bow to the KJV, or you're a heretic." Now, it seems that this has been replaced with "either love the TNIV/NIV '11 or you're a Cretan." Say anything the least bit critical of the TNIV or NIV '11, and you're painted awfully.

Sad. Very sad.

 

Why not be consistent instead of singling out the men? Why not say, "Those who hate and divorce their spouses . . . cover themselves with violence . . . ?" Can a woman not divorce her husband? Why apply the harsh words only to the man? What makes the masculine participles (if indeed they are really masculine participles) actually have validity here but not in so many other places in the Bible? Strange and inconsistent!

 

I see the dilemma of the translators. They don't want to lose the personal nature of the biblical applications, but they also don't want to use singular masculine pronouns, so they just drop a "that person" and a singular verb into the middle of sentences to correspond with plural nouns and verbs. Strange, grammatically inconsistent, and the personal nature of the biblical applications is indeed watered down no matter how many "that person"s they sprinkle into their pluralized version.

 

I've got no cards in this hand, rarely using the NIV for study.

I too can see the dilemma of translators.

Your thoughts clearly demonstarte the advantage of studying a variety of translations knowing how the various versions deal with these problems.

There are advantages of a literal translation and there are advantages to knowing the full extent of the authors meaning

Rob