End of TNIV?

A non-Baptist posting in Baptist only sections and WARNED not to do so will be immediately banned from posting, period.

We have rules and expect Christians who signed on the BB to OBEY those rules.

(Baptist is defined as an active member of a Baptist church, not just someone who thinks they are kinda baptist-like)[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, Dr. Bob, I am a member of a Baptist church and have a position as an interim in a Baptist church. I believe that qualifies me.

 

I highly doubt that Ann is following anyone around. That is not something that she has ever engaged in before. There have been claims of both following him/her around and personal attacks that cannot be substantiated by any posts in recent days.

 

Hi...I haven't attacked anyone and if I'm mistaken about Ann, that's fine. She's just responded to all my recent posts.

Thanks.

 

My intent was not to say you attacked anyone but that you made the claim yourself. And it was without merit.

 

Thanks, mitch, for your understanding and kindness.

And we will see how the new NIV does. I really feel for those who worked on the TNIV and found themselves targeted as they did. They really did good work and, in some cases, their careers have taken an unfair hit. I hope their improvements over the original NIV text is not ignored by the new committee.

 

I have the same sentiments.

 

I also agree with you about the NLT. It is completely ridiculous that the TNIV received the treatment it did when the NLT was left alone. My guess is that it has something to do with the scholar who was the chairperson of the translation committee. He worked in close proximity toward some of the more theologically powerful ones who came down on it so hard.

The NLT is a good translation, but I think the TNIV because of its connection to the NIV, is more helpful.

Pleasure to meet you, Rippon. Blessings.

 

I agree. I, too studied under many scholars on various translations and some in the pro-TNIV camp are friends.

Here's where we would depart. I believe the squashing came from the TNIV's own supporters, namely, Zondervan, which failed to market this well, and IBS, which seemed duplicitous in the entire process as even pro-TNIV scholar friends quietly admit. What they should have done with the TNIV they are now doing with the NIV revision. I hope the translation cmte keeps the process somewhat open and transparent. They came out of the gate strong.

I don't believe gender neutrality is the problem as such, and probably 90% of the folks I know who raised a stink feel the same way. It's just that there is a perception that some passages were forced into gender neutrality when translation did not call for it (2 Tim 3:17 is one example that comes to mind).

I, too, eagerly await its release. The NIV needed a makeover, and Biblica needed to do something to wipe the slate clean, IMHO. I firmly believe the new NIV will look a whole lot like the TNIV. Just my opinion.

 

Do you know these folks personally, or are you just saying it's an observation of yours of those who raised a stink?

Gender-neutrality? The TNIV doesn't do that.

Is it your studied opinion that only adult males should be thus equipped, or all of God's people?

I agree.

 

Well....yes. :smilewinkgrin: I do know some personally, and I've observed in comments, writings, talks, etc. this to be the case in others.

All God's people should be equipped, but what did Paul have in mind when he wrote tou theo anthropos? It seems that the theologically pregnant "man of God" found throughout Scripture, particularly in this case in the Pastorals, is what was intended. If that is the case, I posit that it should be reflected in the text. But I understand the other viewpoint. It's a question of translation methodology. The NIV felt it needed to be retained and I agree with their view. The TNIV's marginal translation is IMHO much preferred over what actually is in the text.

 

I just want to comment with respect to the marketing effort(s). I agree with those that think that Zondervan shot the golden goose and lost the PR war. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist but the situation made it perfect for Crossways to make some headway with the reformed crowd by giving them an alternative to the NIV (and the NIV Study Bible) with the ESV (and ESV Study Bible). Zondervan should have in my opinion revised the NIV with TNIVish margin notes instead of a complete new product.

I don't care for the ESV personally and my reasons have much less to do with the translation than other issues, but one thing that Crossways does and Zondervan and Thomas Nelson does not has to do with the quality of the actual paper and bindings themselves. The next time I buy a brand new Bible, it will be because I want something that will be a joy to read and will last more than a year. Sorry for taking this thread off into the sunset. My mainstay NIV Study Bible in genuine cowhide purchased in 1989 is still solid, a NKJV 2 years old from Nelson is falling apart. I will pay for quality.
Tom

 

When you have a Bible that you believe to be the final authority on all matters spiritual, moral, and civil, you do not have to worry about what else is out there, how it is being tinkered with, and what the motives were in its production. It is such a blessing to not be encumbered with a lot of this worry and debate. :thumbs:

 

Thomas, Crossway has a great opportunity they're squandering. So is Lockman. So is B&H. Crossway's binding is one of the worst ever in the history of Bibles. Like you, I have Bibles that are 20 yrs old that are in great shape and Bibles that are 2 yrs old that are falling apart. It seems like the Gen Leather of today was the bonded leather of my college days.

 

That's why I LOVE my ESV and my NIRV. Thanks!

 

If the NIV 2011 removes the gender accurate (not neutral, totally different) language I will stick with the TNIV buying the certainly discounted copies or switch to the NRSV or NLT.