Today's New International Version

Well, our culture has been affected politically regarding genders, no doubt about that. But to say that various translator committees translated the way they did because they were driven by some feminist agenda is simply not accurate. Here's a little re-cap of what happened specifically regarding the TNIV and a look at a few of the specifics regarding the changes made:

In 1998 there was a reaction in the US to what was called the "stealth Bible" when Zondervan released the NIVI (NIV Inclusive) in the US. It had already bee nreleased earlier in England and well received. But the US is more conservative evangelistically. The CBMW (Committee for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) started a rally in opposition to "changing the NIV." The reaction was so strong that there was a meeting in Colorado Springs of several well-known evangelicals and the Zondervan staff. There they developed a set of "Colorado Spring Guidelines" (CGS) which was to be followed in any future revisions of the NIV. Also there Zondervan promised to "freeze" the NIV and not everchange it again. (Which was actually against their charter which said that it would continue to be upgraded so as to keep it up to date wit hthe times and improve the accuracy.)

One problem. Zondervan does not translate the NIV. The CBT (Committee for Bible Translation) - an arm of Zondervan - does that. And it was set up such that it is autonomous from Z. - so as to prevent it from being politically affected. Well the CBT did not buy into the CGS. They developed their own set of gender-inclusive rules which did not always agree with the CGS.

In 2002 word got out that Zondervan was about to release another gender-inclusive Bible - after promising never to revise the NIV. It was called Today's NIV. There was a strong reaction again.

Oh, after the NIVI in 1998 The Southern Baptist Convention decided that it was time to come up with a translation of their own. They were tired of paying royalties to Zondervan for NIV scripture in their Lifeway products. A member of the SBC, Art Farstad - who had been the editor of the NKJV which came out in 1983, had been working with little help since about 84, 85 on a completely new translation of the Bible (based on the majority text) - which he called the Logos 21 translation. He had a rough translation for all of the NT at the time and much of the OT. So the SBC commissioned him, gave him plenty of money to work with so that he could hire a crew, and away they went. Farstad died later that year, and the work was continued, but it was switched from a majority text based on the Byzantine text to one based on the Alexandrian text as nearly all modern translations are. This became known as the Holman Christian Standard Bible. (HCSB). IMO it is a very good translation.

The HCSB was a conservative gender-inclusive Bible - one that the CBMW could embrace. They followed the CGS to the T. So if anyone wants to compare what the CBMW believes should be followed with say the NLT, TNIV, CEV, NCV or the NRSV, they can get an idea of how more inclusive that Bible is in comparison. Also the ESV was developed (a revision of the RSV) starting in 98 as well by a bunch of conservative evangelicals with a slight gender-inclusive bent. (Very slight.) It is even more conservative than the HCSB.

OK, so what are the "changes" made by G-I Bibles that is getting such a strong reaction? Well first we need to recognize a few things:

For an example of #8 above, we sometimes say, "Does anyone here want this book? If so, they can come up here and I will give it to them." Otherwise we would have to say something awkward such as, "Does anyone here want this book? If so, that person can come up here and I will give it to the one who does so." In the past we simply said, "Does anyone here want this book? If so, he can come up here and I will give it to him." Masculine, singular 3rd person pronouns were used in a generic manner. Everyone understood that the person coming up to receive their book could be a man or a woman. But in the past 40 or 50 years that has been changing. I asked my daughter, and she honestly said that if she heard it expressed like this last case (red) she would be confused as to whether the book was being made available to everyone, or only to any man who might want it. I know, that seems hard to believe. But to the younger generation, it is more of an issue - we must remember that. Also, the 1st case in this paragraph (blue) is how English grammars tell us to express such things today, and not only today but for over a hundred years. That's a fact. So why should we get so upset with such speech? FYI, that is one of the cases that the CBMW reacted so strongly against. I would say that about 1/2 of all the verses that they object to in the TNIV are of such type.

Another change that G-I Bibles sometimes make is to change the wording from being 3rd person to 2nd person so as to avoid the gender issue altogether. Here's an example:

Proverbs 18:16 (NIV) A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers him into the presence of the great.

Proverbs 18:16 (NLT) Giving a gift works wonders; it may bring you before important people.

Now the problem is that IOT be more accurate translations should retain the grammatical distinctives - 3rd person should remain 3rd person. I personally object whenever such type of changes are made. I would prefer:

"A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers them into the presence of the great."

But that makes something else more clear as well: making G-I changes sometimes forces translators to make the text more free and less literal.

So perhaps you see why I think this Gender inclusive thing is overblown. (Those who use "gender neutral" are being sarcastic and implying that there is an attempt to mute the genders with such things. That's why I use "gender inclusive" because it morre accurately reflects what isreally going on - an attempt to use more speech which includes both men and women in those addressed.) The question then becomes, "Is it valid or accurate to do so?" Because as we will discover, some masculine representativce (MR) language is also less accurate and should be changed simply to be more literal - more accurate. For example, consdier Luke 9:23...

Luke 9:23 (NIV) Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

Luke 9:23 (TNIV) Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."

Notice how the TNIV made it less literal above? But they did not need to do so - that was not related to G-I stuff. They could have said:

Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, they must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."

These represent the majority of the kind of changes we're talking about. In Luke 9:23 the KJV has , "If any man..." (The RSV has the same.) But in the Greek it is TIS, which is NOT "man" but simply "anyone." That happened because the English language back then was more male-representative in nature. We use "one" more often today IOT avoid M-R speech.

I've got lots more to say on this, but I think it will get too long, and this is a good place to stop. In the next post I'll list some of the specific grammatical issues that the CBMW opposes and the Greek involved so we can discuss it in more specific detail.

Thx,

FA

 

I thought I would list the CBMW's objections, since they went into great detail, listing every single instance that they objectedto in the Old and New Testaments!

So here are a few more examples of the issues - I've listed them by the categories they used:

1 Corinthians 14:28.7 (NIV) If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

1 Corinthians 14:28.7 (NIVI) If there is no interpreter, the speakers should keep quiet in the church and speak to themselves and God.

1 Corinthians 14:28.7 (TNIV) If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church; let them speak to themselves and to God.

The TNIV is better than the NIVI IMO because it retains the singularity of thought. Though it uses "themselves," it is clear from "the speaker" that only one person is being referenced. IMO it is also beter than the NIV since the NIV appears to be saying that only men can speak (in tongues) in church. But in the Greek there is not a male pronoun there - it is generic - so what the NIV did was add something to the text which was not there in the Greek. They did so because of the issue we have with not having a 3rd person singular generic pronoun. The TNIV solved the issue in a manner which follows English grammatical rules.

Here's another example:

John 15:5 (RSV) "I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."

John 15:5 (TNIV) "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."

Notice that the TNIV switched from 3rd person to 2nd person. I prefer instead: "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who abides in me, and I in them, those are the ones that bear much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." Or something like that.

Hers's a note that the CBMW made regarding the revision of the TNIV in 2005:

Following are the CBMW objections by categories...

A. Changes from Singular to Plural to Avoid the Use of “He/Him/His”

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “they/them/their /themselves” (where Greek has singular verb and/or masculine singular 3rd person pronoun) (217 times)

Matthew 10:10 (NIV) take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Matthew 10:10 (TNIV) no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for workers are worth their keep.

In the above instance, the Greek has a 3rd person masculine pronoun. What the TNIV has done is assumed that this was merely male-representative speech. In general, I agree with them, though in some cases the TNIV has switched what was intended to be 3rd person masculine speech in addressing males only - though that is not very common.


“he/him/his/himself” (with singular Greek verb and/or masculine 3rd person singular Greek pronoun) changed to
“they/them/their/themselves” (with singular antecedent in English; these are examples of the so-called "singular they") (159 times)

Acts 2:6 (NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Acts 2:6 (TNIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

Above is an example of "singular they." It is how we do it these days, and for some 50 - 100 years - whetehr some people will admit it or not. So I agree with such changes, in general. There are other examples of suich similar typer changes which the CBMW listed, but they're all essentially the same. That accounts for 412 of the 910 such changes in the NIV -> TNIV. That is 45% of all gender-inclkusive changes by the TNIV. Again I hope you see why I think there has been an over-reaction.

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “you/your/yourself” (90)

Galatians 6:3 (NIV) If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

Galatians 6:3 (TNIV) If any of you think you are something when you are nothing, you deceive yourselves.

This 2nd general type G-I change accounts for about 143 of the 910 changes. (412+143)/910 -> 61%. 3 out of every 5 changes in the TNIV had to do with dealing with the 3rd person pronoun in Greek.

They then list a few examples in which "anyone" or "whoever" is changed to something else. Not significant. They account for another 55 changes -> (412+143 +55)/910 -> 67%. I agree with all of these changes, in general, though perhaps 10 - 15% were not handled the best.

 

Category B - CBMW

Here's our next major category:

B. Changes to Avoid the Word “Father” and Related Words

“father” (pater, singular) changed to “parents” (1)

Acts 7:20 (NIV) "At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for in his father's house.

Acts 7:20 (TNIV) "At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for in his parents' home.

“fathers” (pater, plural) changed to “parents” or “people” (2)
(Though “parents” is sometimes acceptable as a meaning for the plural of pater, in this case the context is speaking of fatherly discipline)

Hebrews 12:9 (NIV) Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

Hebrews 12:9 (TNIV) Moreover, we have all had parents who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!

“fathers”/forefathers” (pater, plural) changed to ancestors (34)

This accounts for about 37/910 or only about 4% of the changes. I do not agree with such changes.

 

Category C - CBMW

Here's the next major category:

C. Changes to Avoid the Word “Brother” (Or to Add the Word “Sister”)

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “brother” or “sister” (19)

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

Romans 14:10 (TNIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “(fellow) believer” (5)
(The BDAG Lexicon, p. 18, lists “brother, fellow member, member, associate” as possible meanings for adelphos, but all the singular examples listed refer to male human beings. The earlier BAGD Lexicon, p.16, did not give these meanings, and the new BDAG Lexicon (2000) gives no new examples or new arguments to justify these new meanings
that it proposes. The LSJ Lexicon (p. 20) gives the meaning “brother (as a fellow Christian)”, but does not give the meaning “believer.”)
FA - They seem to be dancing here. The lexicons allow that in some cases ADELPHOI means "fellow Christian/believer." Theissue I have with it is that it is too vague. And when I see "believer" I assume some form of PISTEWS. Why not just leave it as "brothers" or "brothers and sisters"? But IMO to make that change is acceptable - based on the lexicons. Now in my opinion ADELPHOS (singular "brother") should not be translated as "brother and/or sister."

2 Thessalonians 3:6 (NIV) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 (TNIV) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “(fellow) believers” (4)

James 1:9 (NIV) The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position.

James 1:9 (TNIV) Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position.

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “other” (15)

1 Corinthians 8:13 (NIV) Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

1 Corinthians 8:13 (TNIV) Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

FA - In general, I agree with the CBMW that this type of change - involving singular "brother" (ADELPHOS) should not be made. When it is singular it appears that it always intends to refer to men only. Many translators disagree with this, so I could be wrong.

Following the CBMW disagrees with changing the plural "brothers" (ADELPHOI) to "brothers and sisters." Here they are being somewhat inconsistent since in otehr publiscations they have acknowledged that this is legitimate in Greek and that the lexicons support that. So I accept such things. Personally, I don't have a problem with translations which leave it as "brothers" - since IMO people understand that it is being used in a generic manner - but I do not object to those translations which use "brothers and sisters." The argument is made that there is a Greek word for "sisters" and it could have been used, but it is never done so a single time in the NT, even in cases where obviously both men and women are being addressed.

“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “brothers and sisters”
(where sisters is uncertain or doubtful) (8)

Acts 1:16 (NIV) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--

Acts 1:16 (TNIV)and said, "Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus.

(IOW, in the above they say that it is uncertain whether or not Peter was intending to speak to ONLY men. I agree with them here, since IMO in Acts 2 and 3 Peter was addressing only the men who were Jewish "brothers." However, in chapter 1 we know that women were with the apostles, so it appears that Peter was addressing everyone. In chapter 2, however, he uses "ANHR/ANDROS - which only refers to men ["men"/"husbands"]. So IMO the context there shows that Peter was addressing the men only, though certainly application to women was understood, while here Peter was likely addressing men and women.)

“brothers/brotherhood” (adelphos, plural) changed to “fellow believers” (4)

1 Timothy 6:2 (NIV) Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

1 Timothy 6:2 (TNIV) Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.
(In the above, a different Greek word is used and we don't know that in the TNIV.)

“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “believers” (27)

John 21:23 (NIV) Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

John 21:23 (TNIV) Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Again I agree with the CBMW in their objection since it loses accuracy.


“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “other” (11)

Matthew 5:47 (NIV) And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Matthew 5:47 (TNIV) And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

In general I prefer the CBMW handling of the above cases since it makes the language too free and loses accuracy otherwise. But the lexicons do support what the TNIV does here as something which is a possible meaning. In general plural of ADELPHOS (ADELPHOI) can be translated as "brothers and sisters." The CBMW used to object to this, but they changed this one later. They now object to the singular translation as "brother and sister," and I agree with them there.

 

Category D - CBMW

Next major category:

D. Changes to Avoid the Word “Man”
FA - This involves the translation of ANQRWPOS and ANHR/ANDROS. They should have made separete categories, IMO.

“man” or “husband” (aner, singular) changed to “other” (7)
(The BDAG Lexicon (p. 79) gives as the general definition of aner the meaning, “a male person,” and under that general definition it gives as meaning 2, “equivalent to tis, someone, a person.” All the examples they list under meaning 2 either clearly refer to a male human being (as Luke 19:2, for example, “and there was a man named "Zacchaeus”), or the context is not determinative but the meaning “man” makes good sense and the meaning “person” is not required. BDAG at the end of this entry also notes an idiom, katandra, which clearly means “man for man, individually,” and clearly includes women in some instances, but that idiom does not occur in the New Testament. The LSJ Lexicon (p. 138) also notes the idiom katandra, with a similar meaning. The LSJ Lexicon does not give the meaning “person” for aner, but rather, “man, op-posed to women,” “man, opposed to god,” “man, opposed to youth,” “man emphatically, man indeed,” “husband,” and some special usages. For further discussion on the word aner, “man,”
see Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000), p. 101, note 2, and pages 321-333; see also, “Can Greek aner (“man”) sometimes mean “person”?” at www.cbmw.org/TNIV/aner.html.)

James 1:12 (NIV) Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

James 1:12 (TNIV) Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

I agree with the CBMW that ANHR/ANDROS always means "man"/"husband." There is some disagreement over whether or not it can ever be used in a generic sense. But I feel it is safer to never do so. Let people see the application for them. This only happens 25 times (about 2.7%) so it is rare.


Now as part of this category, I feel that they should have split it off, since they then address the use of ANQRWPOI, which is not, in general, "men." It means "people." The CBMW has shown some ignorance about this. They list some examples where in their opinion it was intended to refer to "men" only. Perhaps, but itsn't it safer to just use "people" or some other generic reference in such cases? It would be more accurate grammatically to do so. They also argue that only plural ANTHWPOI (plural of ANQWPOS) should be generic. I do not agree.

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “people” or other plural nouns (9)

2 Timothy 3:17 (NIV) so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:17 (TNIV) so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “you/your” (10)

Mark 8:36 (NIV) What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

Mark 8:36 (TNIV) What good is it for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul?

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “human being/human/mere mortal” when referring to a specific historical man (6)
James 5:17 (NIV) Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.

James 5:17 (TNIV) Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.

(Personally I have no issue with translating it as "man" in the above sort of instance, but "person" would work as well, and would be more accurate. I don'tunderstand CBMW's objection. James used ANHR earlier, and if he wanted to say "man" hecould have done so again. "Human being" is accurate here.)

“men” (anthropos, plural) changed to “people” when referring to male human beings (1)

Hebrews 5:1 (NIV) Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 5:1 (TNIV) Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

(Again, I understand, but ANWRPOI means "people." Why add in male concepts to the text when it was not there? And in this instance. Kames is not saying that priests are chosen from amongmen - that's not his point. He issaying that priests are chosen from human beings... he is a person. The next verse says that he isable to deal gently and with empathy since he himself is prone to weakness. We don't want to miss that point.)

This involves 48 cases - about 5%.

 

Category E - CBMW

Next major category:

E. Changes to Avoid the Word “Son” - changed to "child" or “children”; changed to "people."

Hebrews 12:6 (NIV) because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

Hebrews 12:6 (TNIV) because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his child."
Galatians 4:7 (NIV) So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
FA - Heirs were sons only, so it is significant IOT underdstand the symbolism here to have it be as a son.

Galatians 4:7 (TNIV) So you are no longer slaves, but God's children; and since you are his children, he has made you also heirs.

(I agree with the CBMW in each of these instances. We have two words used very often in Greek for children (PAIDION and TEKNIA) so why change "sons" to "children" or something else?)

There were 25 such instances - about 2.7%.


There were 62 other different changes - about 7%. Perhaps it should be more like 60% since some of the type changes I agree with in some instances I think they handled it wrong.

But notice: the changes that IMO are not grammatically so valid are not a big deal, are they? Personally, I can go along with them. I do prefer what the HCSB has done, I suppose, but IMO the HCSB has not made as many changes as they should - about 60% of the time they did something that is not as accurate as it could be - of those 900
instances.

910 instances in the entire Bible is not really very many.



Sorry about all the details, but at least this gives us some specific stuff to discuss. If you are not familiar with the Greek, please do not hesitate to make comments anyway. The idea was to help us understand both sides on this issue.


So, what do you guys think? Where do you stand?

FA

 

Sorry about over-loading the thread. Pls don't feel the need to respond to those posts.

This is something I've investigated, trying to figure it out, and I just wanted to put some things out there so people could make comments based on what the CBMW published and about what G-I things they did feel comfortable with from the TNIV and which they did not.

Basically they break down into:

1 - singular "they" idea. ("they"/"them" etc. used instead of "he"/"him" - usually this is accurate grammatically)
2 - "brother" as "brother and/or sister" or something else, such as "fellow believer" (when plural, this is usually valid IMO)
3 - "father" as "parents" (Almost never valid IMO)
4 - ANQRWPOS as "people" (That is what it means - a none issue IMO)
5 - ANHR/ANDROS as "people" or anything other than "man"/"husband" (A real issue - never valid IMO)

There are others, but that covers it in general.

FA

 

Amen, Faith Alone! Preach it!

Thanks for helping to show the inferiority of the TNIV compared to many of the more literal translations. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone would prefer the TNIV over the superior more literal translations. After all, the TNIV is only a dynamic equivalence translation, and many of its rendering are incorrect. [snipped] It certainly has no place in my library, nor will it ever have a place there. "Gender inclusive" indeed - that isn't the way it was written in most cases and that certainly isn't the way it should be "translated!"

 

Keith,

Thx, but actually, if you go back and read in a little more detail what I posted on the gender-inclusive issue you'd see that I in general support the TNIV as superior to the NIV and G-I Bibles in gender-inclusive issues more often than not. I do have some issues with some of the things they have done, but most of what they have done is really no big deal. I guess I wasn't very clear. I listed those specific examples in the previous detailed, technical posts so that we would have some specific scriptures and examples to discuss. Perhaps you'd like to discuss some of the specific examples that I posted earlier and we could discuss whatever issue you have with them. Personally, I am convinced much of the gender-inclusive controversy is a matter of misunderstanding.

I do not agree with what I put in blue that you said below, BTW. I do not believe that the TNIV is inferior to other "more literal translations." I do not consider the other translations of which you speak to be more literal or more accurate than the TNIV. I believe that the accusations against the TNIV are simply borne out of ignorance of what is going on translationally. For example, when the NKJV or the NASB translate ANQRWPOS as "men" they are not being more literal than the TNIV or the NLT when they translate it as "people," "person" or something else. It means "people" in plural and "person" (or "one") when singular.

I went into detail in trying to explain what the TNIV did in the specific instances that the CBMW listed - sometimes agreeing with the CBMW and sometimes agreeing with the TNIV. I have no ax to grind. But if you, or others, disagree with the kind of changes the TNIV made, then can you be specific about what you do not like so we can talk about them? The reason I looked at those specific types of changes was to help people understand the translation issues, and to give us something specific to discuss rather than just pointing fingers. WHen I first got involved in the gender-inclusive issue a few years ago I was strongly opposed to the types of changes made... but I discovered that I was reacting in ignorance.

Now I have found, when carefully looking at each of the 910 specific instances in which the TNIV is criticized by the CBMW (just go to their website - and I have looked at each of those specific references) that about 2/3rd of the time I agree with what the TNIV has done and believe it to be more accurate and supportable. In some of those, I had no problem with translations which left it as "he," or "men," for example, but the TNIV was accurately translating the Greek, so we should not criticize the TNIV or the NLT or NRSV for what they did in those instances - it could even be shown that they were actually more accurate in doing so.

Perhaps I should explain my summary...

So basically there are 5 general types of issues regarding the TNIV. Those that I commented upon above in green - in general are following sound Greek translation principles. Those that I commented upon in Red are not - IMO.

 

Category A - TNIV "changes"

Perhaps we should look at the TNIV category by category and discuss the kinds of "changes" made by the TNIV, NLT, NRSV and other modern translations. Here's category "A":

Following are the CBMW objections by categories - as listed by the CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - a conservative organization concrned about gender issues and the role of the husband and wife in scripture)...

A. Changes from Singular to Plural to Avoid the Use of “He/Him/His”

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “they/them/their /themselves” (where Greek has singular verb and/or masculine singular 3rd person pronoun) (217 times)

Matthew 10:10 (NIV) take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Matthew 10:10 (TNIV) no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for workers are worth their keep.

In the above instance, the Greek has a 3rd person masculine pronoun. What the TNIV has done is assumed that this was merely male-representative speech. In general, I agree with them, though in some cases the TNIV has switched what was intended to be 3rd person masculine speech in addressing males only - though that is not very common.

FA - In the above scripture, here's the "offending" phrase in Greek, the "questionable" word in blue:
...γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.
AUTOU = 3rd person masculine singular. As the CBMW said, the TNIV assumed that "male representative" speech was being used. I could not determine what specific OT text was being quoted. But does anyone think that only men were being referenced here? In those days, perhaps workers were almost always men, but are they today? True, a masculine pronoun is being used. But I have no issue with using "their" since today we no longer use "male representative" speech in general.


“he/him/his/himself” (with singular Greek verb and/or masculine 3rd person singular Greek pronoun) changed to
“they/them/their/themselves” (with singular antecedent in English; these are examples of the so-called "singular they") (159 times)

Acts 2:6 (NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Acts 2:6 (TNIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

FA - In the above scripture, here's the "offending" phrase in Greek, the "questionable" word in blue:
ὅτι ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν.
AUTWN - 3rd person singular genitive. Again, it is a masculine pronoun. But the TNIV assumed that male representative speech was being used. Notice "a crowd" canme together. Did only ther men in that crowd understand the apostles speaking in his own tongue? of course not. So as I see it, the TNIV decision here was valid.
Above is an example of "singular they." It is how we do it these days, and for some 50 - 100 years - whether some people will admit it or not. So I agree with such changes, in general. There are other examples of suich similar type changes which the CBMW listed, but they're all essentially the same. That accounts for 412 of the 910 such changes in the NIV -> TNIV. That is 45% of all gender-inclusive changes by the TNIV. Again I hope you see why I think there has been an over-reaction.

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “you/your/yourself” (90)

Galatians 6:3 (NIV) If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

Galatians 6:3 (TNIV) If any of you think you are something when you are nothing, you deceive yourselves.

FA - In the above scripture, here's the "offending" phrase in Greek, the "questionable" word in blue:
εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν.
TIS - is a simple indefinite pronoun meaning "someone" or "who."
EAUTON - a reflexive pronoun meaning "himself" - 3rd person masculione. Yes, itis masculine. Butagain let's look at the context. "Nothing" is neuter - hence why should we assume that only men are being addressed? Again I have no issue with what the HCSB did...
"[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself."

In the first underlined word above, the HCSB uses "anyone" rather than "a man" - such as the KJV used... no ther translation did that - not even the NKJV, foi it is simply inaccurate. Now if 'anyone" addresses both men and women, why insist on "himself," "he" etc.? Personally, I would have preferred the following rather than change from 3rd person to 2nd person:
[/FONT]"If anyone thinks they are something when they are nothing, they deceive themselves.

This 2nd general type G-I change accounts for about 143 of the 910 changes. (412+143)/910 -> 61%. 3 out of every 5 changes in the TNIV had to do with dealing with the 3rd person pronoun in Greek.

They then list a few examples in which "anyone" or "whoever" is changed to something else. Not significant. They account for another 55 changes -> (412+143 +55)/910 -> 67%. I agree with all of these changes, in general, though perhaps 10 - 15% were not handled the best.


Any comments about the types of changes made in this category?

Thx,

FA

 

My bad, FA! Sorry I misunderstood. I still have no plans at all to start using the TNIV or any GI version. Never have - never will. I just don't feel there is a place for them.

 

Keith,

No problemo. But are you open to investigating the facts around gendeir-inclusive translating? Like I said, I once was dead-set against it myself. But after spending a lot of time and debating it with translators, I began to see things from a different perspective. That's why I posted the past few posts... not to "debate" it - but to stimulate some discussion about just what it is all about. My personal opinion is that it is much to do about nothing.

I'm not going to twist the data to appear differently than it is - I've got no ax to grind - no agenda. And there are some G-I rules that I do not agree with.

FA