End of TNIV?

I'm intimately familiar with their writings and talks concerning the TNIV. You've seen me critique where I think they are misled, so your blind implication that I give them some sort of carte blanche is without merit. I never said they were 100% accurate about the TNIV (or any % to my recollection), but unlike you, I'm unwilling to presume that they are de facto 100% incorrect about the TNIV just because they have concerns about the TNIV or more to the point, that they disagree with you. I just don't require blind and unquestioned support for me to agree with someone. In short, you're guilty of what you accuse me of. Unlike you, I'm willing to consider that maybe their motives are something short of sinister and that there may be some shred of evidence for a case for translational and textual issues with the TNIV, and this doesn't just pertain to the TNIV. It doesn't pertain to any translation, and that's the issue. I have never exonerated them. Yet, I'm unwilling to throw them under the bus, and because of this, you take issue.

It was meant in jest. You can see that from context. I'm trying to be light hearted with you, friend. I know that I'm guilty of the horrible sin of not agreeing with you in that anyone who dares speak against the TNIV must be accursed. So I'm trying to earn forgiveness with some levity :tongue3:

We're going in circles here. I hope the NIV2011 goes well. Once again, I hope the CBT utilizes the best of scholars to produce the best of translations. I hope that the improvements made by the TNIV will find their way there. I hope folks can get past demonizing those with whom they disagree. The cause of Christ demands nothing less.

 

That should be :"The rejection of the TNIV is important for the spiritual health of the people of God."

I had quoted it correctly in my post #48.

 

Depends. I would weigh the arguments they make prior to that, consider their motives in doing so, and then evaluate whether they have merit (what texts are being referred to, etc.). That's the difference between you and me here. If someone has legitimate textual/translational grounds to say what they're saying, it doesn't bother me in the least. Now, if they're just shooting from the hip, then I might take offense. But one thing you cannot say about those you quote is that they do so haphazardly. They have textual grounds to stand on. We can disagree with their opinions with our own, but we must not fall victim to demonization just because they have a view different than our own.

By the way, for the fun of it, look at Grudem's entire quote:

Just prior, Grudem says:

Just food for thought.

Just for the record, though, I would agree that we need to hope that the ESV gets much, much better for the sake of the gospel :thumbsup: Could be a much better translation. Has about a billion too many "And"s in the gospels alone

 

That is just astounding.

Of course they are shooting from the hip.

They are sinking in quicksand with their absurdly sinful charges.

They are doing the demonizing very well on their own.

That's another absurdity. The ESV,NASBU and NKJ all have their weaknesses but it is stupid to say any of those translations has to improve for the sake of the gospel. That's just way of bounds. The Gospel is as clearly taught in those translations as it is in the TNIV.

 

What's astounding? That I actually weigh arguments instead of relying on conjecture, prejudice and presuppositions? Guilty as charged.

Rippon, friend, it's clear where you're coming from. I'm dismayed that you are so mired in your fixation that you fail to see humor despite the emoticons. As someone who takes potshots at the ESV whenever possible, I figured you of all people would appreciate the joke. I thought wrong.

It's clear that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong in your eyes. It is what it is. Grace and peace to you!

 

Hey Vern

This is from an article by Poythress called Small Changes In Meaning Can Matter: The Unacceptability Of The TNIV

One cannot have confidence as to where one is reading the pure word of God, and where one is reading something that is close to being the word of God, but with some small alterations.

[Later VP sounds like he's channeling old KJVO-speak against the NIV when he objects to the TNIV rendering of Hebrews 2:6] ... it has opened up the door to an attack on the deity of Christ.

 

That you would buy any stock from Grudem, Poythress & Co. Their statements are sinfully stupid.

Your scale needs some adjustment.

The land of reason -- not the place where anti-TNIV and ESVO mentality reside.

The kind of junk that issues forth from the likes of Grudem and his ilk is sinfully wrong.

 

More From The Folks With The Sinfully Silly Syndrome

First of all, here's the TNIV translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 :

I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man, she must be quiet.

Wayne Grudem, in an interview called :Part Five, Must A Woman Always Remain Silent In Church said some of the following things.

I would find it almost impossible to teach a Biblical "complementarian" view of the role of women in the church from the TNIV.

The TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation.

This gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation.

If churches adopt this translation the debate over women's roles in the church will be over.
______________________________________

Grudem's objection is over the word assume I guess. In context it means to grab power wrongfully. From my Longman's Dictionary : To take or claim for oneself without the right to do so. It has the same idea as the word "usurp".

In Calvin's commentary on this passage (originally in Latin) he has :"I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man." That's what the TNIV has!

I looked at what Gill and Henry had in their commentaries. They emphasized that a woman was not to usurp authority over the man.

KJV : I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Geneva : I permit not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe authoritie over the man, but to be in silence.

Bishop's Bible : But I suffer not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe authortie over ye man, but to be in silence.

 

Here is what Rick Mansfield said way back on 3/24/09.

"If the TNIV survives at all (and I really think that's iffy to be honest), I believe it will have to be relaunched, in a revised form, and perhaps with a different name."

Mr. Mansfield was prophetic here; wasn't he?

 

I think Grudem's point is that "assume authority over" may give the impression that husband and wife, to start out with, are in positions of equal authority. The word "usurp" gives the impression that the woman is taking over the man's God-designed higher authoritative position.

It might be better for your own position if you would alter your highly pejorative language and imputation of evil motives, which on page 7 alone are evident in at least the following statements:

(1) "Their statements are sinfully stupid."
(2) "The kind of junk that issues forth from the likes of Grudem and his ilk is sinfully wrong."
(3) "They are sinking in quicksand with their absurdly sinful charges."
(4) "They are doing the demonizing very well on their own."

The language you use really indicates more about yourself than the people to whom you refer.

 

In posts numbered 62,67 and 69 I quote Poythress,Mohler and Grudem. Do you have any objection to their language? Be consistent now.

Poythress,Grudem,Piper,Mohler,Bayly,Dobson and Ryken have been way over the top in their "criticism" of the TNIV. You need to open your eyes.

 

It's really more the way you present your ideas, not the substance of them. Grudem and company generally do not call the translators or their actions "sinfully stupid," "sinfully wrong," "absurdly sinful," "demonizing," "absurdities," "sinful absurdity," "junk," "sinfully audacious," "deliberately, sinfully wrong," "sinful actions," "hyped-up lies," "very sinful," words that you have selected in this thread alone to propagate your opinion, whether right or wrong.

 

The TNIV is destined for a new body.

 

He's a trusted friend, and quite perceptive. I don't get to see him enough these days.

Anyway, we'll see how true it becomes. Most will reject the new NIV if it's just the TNIV in new wineskins, IMHO. But I'd bet that more than a little TNIV gets leavened into the new NIV, and I don't think that's bad.

This type of vitriol is not indicative of the scholarly and credible side of the pro-TNIV crowd. Many philosophies, etc., get a bad rap because of some extremists.

 

It is so sad that this Bible was blacklisted before it could even really hit stores. It's one of the best and most faithful translations. I will continue to use it.

 

Hear,hear!

For the TNIV to be stupidly boycotted for much of its lifespan was sinful.

The NLTse had clear sailing though using much of the same language that met with so many objections.

 

Dear Ann,

Thank you for your concern. I can't help but wonder why you're following me around here. If you would like to discuss theology, I'd be fine with that, but please don't feel like you have to set me straight.

Sincerely,

jaigner

I had the privilege of studying in graduate school under the chairperson and one of the translators of the TNIV translation committee. He is a wonderful Christian evangelical and a fantastic scholar. His Romans commentary is one of, if not the most respected works on the subject in existence.

The funny thing is that the issue of gender inclusiveness is just one of clear, original intent. The translators did NOT translate a gender specific pronoun when the best original manuscripts were in agreement about the meaning being inclusive of both genders.

It's just an example of how evangelicals like to sensationalize, especially when it concerns a hot button topic like this one. The TNIV is a great work of scholarship, corrects many of the issues with the NIV texts, and is faithful to the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, it was squashed before it had a chance to take hold. But I'll continue to use it in my life and work.

Blessings.