TNIV

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Gershom, May 9, 2005.

  1. Gershom

    Gershom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any opinion on the Today's New International Version (TNIV)?

    TNIV
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't care for it. I feel it was a step backwards for the NIV.
     
  3. Gershom

    Gershom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems some other prominent Christian leaders don't care for it either:

    NO-TNIV.COM
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree with David...it doesn't appear to always follow its sources, seeming to carry more than its share of OPINION.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I tend to avoid it like the plague...
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    It's definitely not the best translation out there. I tend to fall between the "gender-inclusive" philosophy and the "leave it as it is" philosophy, so the TNIV bothers me a bit.

    Personally, I prefer leaving words literally translated because I like being able to recognize the original word, and this is not possible with an inclusive translation.

    Even so, I don't see the need to reject translations that attempt to portray the original meaning of the language chosen by the author. E.g.--translating adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" does not bother me when the context clearly indicates an male and female audience. In this case it is translation, for the original meaning (including both men and women) comes through to the English.

    Also, certain words like man, when referring to the human race, could be translated as "humanity" instead of the masculine "mankind." This is perfectly acceptable.

    What I do not approve is pluralizing singular expressions (the individual vs. collective body is an important theological distinction), changing subjects, verb voice, and other important grammatical characteristics which determine the meaning of the sentence. When one does these things, one is not translating; one is changing/interpreting the text. If you desire to do so, by all means proceed, but call it a paraphrase and not a translation.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    NIV

    NrIV

    TNIV

    Future new version after TNIV! ----

    Maybe ANIV (A = American)

    Maybe ANrIV

    Maybe ATNIV

    Maybe NIV2010

    Blah! :rolleyes:
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am of the opinion that the Christian publishers are now days less interested in giving us a reliable translation of the Scriptures, than making a fact buck from it!

    As if there is a need for yet another version of the Bible in the English language? We have probably the most versions available to us in our language, than the next 100 languages put together.

    Each version that rolls of the press, claims to be another "accurate translation", or "based upon older manuscripts", or some other marketing ploy.

    With the exception of the KJV, and NKJV, the rest have a faulty underlying textual basis, and therefore not trustworthy. I know there are many who use "modern versions", like the NIV on this board, and are under the delusion that it is an accurate translation. But, that it their problem, and they have been warned many times here by myself and others not to trust in these "versions". Will they listen?
     
  9. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should read "fast buck"
     
  10. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a KJV only debate, so why did you bring it up? The people here who aren't KJV only (as myself; and me because I have actually studied Greek in school) are not going to "convert" to your side because it doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't claim KJV only-ness.

    Then again, y'all who are KJV only aren't going to come to the acknowledgment of other translations as being valid either. So, why not keep the KJV only debates to the KJV only debate threads instead of trying to turn a question about another translation into a KJV only debate. Some people just aren't gonna listen to it...especially when their question is unrelated to the KJV.

    Back to topic...

    I dislike the TNIV and most of the versions in the NIV family. THey are less translation and more dynamic equivalence than anything. And while that isn't all bad (afterall, when we preach, we use some dynamic equivalence) I think it's overused in the NIV. And the TNIV goes another step and makes it gender neuteral. Proper english grammar just says that using masculine terminology for things is proper (at least when I was taking english classes that is how the books were written all the way to my last english class 2 semesters ago). The TNIV just seems like the Bible for our politically correct culture. It's sad that the church has softened herself to be that way and allow this stuff to go on...
     
  11. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a KJV only debate, so why did you bring it up? The people here who aren't KJV only (as myself; and me because I have actually studied Greek in school) are not going to "convert" to your side because it doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't claim KJV only-ness.

    Then again, y'all who are KJV only aren't going to come to the acknowledgment of other translations as being valid either. So, why not keep the KJV only debates to the KJV only debate threads instead of trying to turn a question about another translation into a KJV only debate. Some people just aren't gonna listen to it...especially when their question is unrelated to the KJV.

    Back to topic...

    I dislike the TNIV and most of the versions in the NIV family. THey are less translation and more dynamic equivalence than anything. And while that isn't all bad (afterall, when we preach, we use some dynamic equivalence) I think it's overused in the NIV. And the TNIV goes another step and makes it gender neuteral. Proper english grammar just says that using masculine terminology for things is proper (at least when I was taking english classes that is how the books were written all the way to my last english class 2 semesters ago). The TNIV just seems like the Bible for our politically correct culture. It's sad that the church has softened herself to be that way and allow this stuff to go on...
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Puritan!

    Regarding the TNIV, it certainly gives the term "dynamic equivalence" an entirely new meaning, doesn't it? I was never a huge fan of the NIV, but the TNIV is much worse than the NIV ever was! I'll take a more literal translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) any time!
     
  12. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the NIV. What I don't like is the publisher equating the NIV with the TNIV.

    Distrust of the publisher appears to be the reason for existence of the ESV.

    Ironically, there are places in the NIV that could have been translated person instead of man, etc.

    But overall, I haven't found a better translation than the NIV. About the time I think of switching to the NASB, I find a verse poorly translated and realize that all of the versions have their problems. I'm sticking with the NIV.
     
  13. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Puritan,

    My daughter at Auburn University has to write him/her or he/she. Unbelievable!
     
  14. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I like the NIV.
    I think the TNIV is printed by Satanic Press Incorporated.
     
  15. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's sad...
     
  16. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    That's sad... </font>[/QUOTE]What's so sad about it? All it is doing is trying to be inclusive and to overcome the inherent bias in the construction of the third person singular pronoun.
     
  17. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's sad... </font>[/QUOTE]What's so sad about it? All it is doing is trying to be inclusive and to overcome the inherent bias in the construction of the third person singular pronoun. </font>[/QUOTE]It's sad because it's just silly. It doesn't really make sense. Also, there are better ways of being inclusive and politically correct than he/she that sound a whole lot more professional.

    (The TNIV is a horrible translation [​IMG] )
     
  18. bobbyd

    bobbyd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first Bible given to me was an NIV when i was 18, and reading that Bible lead me to my faith in Christ...so i do have great respect for the NIV. It is not my favorite translation, but i think it suits a purpose.
    As for the TNIV, to me it seems like a vain attempt to make God's Word a little more politcally correct for some people.
     
  19. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What's so sad about it? All it is doing is trying to be inclusive and to overcome the inherent bias in the construction of the third person singular pronoun.
    -----

    Why is use of he or of she, biased?

    I am very proud of being a woman as God created me.
    I am very happy with men as God created them.

    I see men and women as compliments to one another, and I'm proud enough of who I am that I am not offended or made to feel small by words such as "he" "she." Nor do I believe that God is a woman.
     
  20. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the church would raise up men and women of submission (women who submit to their husbands, husbands who love their wives and are submissive to Christ, and both of which were submissive to the Bible) and didn't try to cater to a culture that has been "plagued" by a radical feminist mindset, versions of the Bible like the TNIV (and any other gender-inclusive version) would not even be considered or accepted by anyone except unbelievers. They wouldn't be needed because men and women would know their rightful places and would realize that the reason the Bible is worded as such is because we are fallen and need to be reminded of what our respective places are.

    Just thought I'd throw that in.
     

Share This Page

Loading...