TNIV : Pro and Con

Revelation 22:18 " I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll." TNIV

Psalm 1:1"Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers" TNIV

 

In the technical articles explaining the changes made in the text of the TNIV the translators of the TNIV said the Greek word "potair" (excuse the spelling.) singular can mean parent or parents which they changed in Hebrews 12 to parent rather than 'father'. This is the same greek word which is always used for God the Father. Will the next generation change that?

 

Because, in many instances of the source texts, they were gender neutral. Fof example, "anthropos" (which is often translated "men") is gender neutral. Adelphoi (typically translated "brother") is gender neutral in many instances.

Admittedly, though, I'm not well-versed in the TNIV translation, so I cannot comment on the TNIV's specific usage. Perhaps there are some among us who have a TNIV or have used it (not simply taking something from a website somewhere) who can comment on it.

 

To tell the truth I don't have a problem with the TNIV it's just the philosophy behind it that bothers me. It's a Bible created to fit in with what the culture wants a Bible to read like. This is my problem with it.

 

In 1 Samuel 18:2 "From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family." TNIV

"From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." NIV

"Saul took him that day and did R615 not let him return to his father's house" NASB

"Saul kept David with him from that day on and did not let him return to his father's house." HCSB

"And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house." ESV

"Saul kept David with him from that day on and did not let him go home to his father's house." NCV

"Saul took David that day, and would not let him return to his father's house." New Life Bible

"And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house." RSV

"Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house." NRSV

"Saul took him that day, and would not let him go home to his father's house anymore" NKJV

"And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house." ASV

"Saul took David that day and would not let him return to his father's house." Amplified

"Saul received David into his own household that day, no more to return to the home of his father" Message

"And that day Saul took David and would not let him go back to his father's house." Bible in Basic English

"And Saul toke him the same daye, and let him not go agayne to his fathers house." Coverdale


Translations that read like the TNIV: CEV,GNT,GW, NLT.

The above phrase 'father's house' was taken out of the OT 11 times without any original language support. In fact the Hebrew in these cases is quite clear it means 'father's house'. When you remove phrases like this you remove the example the Bible gives us of a man being the leader of the home. No the TNIV doesn't destroy this biblical teaching but it does undermine it. Notice not even the NRSV or the RSV changed that text.

 

Even in Samuel when the Bible speaks of David's 30 mighty men the TNIV felt they needed to change that particular word again without any original language support to 'mighty warriors'.

 

Timeline of the TNIV:
May 27, 1997 - In the early-morning hours prior to a meeting at the headquarters of Focus on the Family called by Dr. James Dobson, Zondervan and International Bible Society (IBS) call a press conference at which they issue a press release, indicating that "IBS has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)."

June 24, 1999 - An online news service, Religion Today, published a feature story, "'Gender-accurate' Bible due to be published," in which it reported an interview with Steve Johnson, communications director for the IBS, who said that a "gender-accurate" translation of the Bible is due to be published in 2003 or 2004. The article reported, "The new translation will not be called the NIV, but will be similar to it, Johnson said. 'The style and character will remain the same.' Wording of the new translation is being researched by scholars who make up the Committee on Bible Translation, the group that originally translated the NIV."

January 18, 2002 - International Bible Society president Peter Bradley sent a certified letter informing several key evangelical leaders that since the May 1997 meeting, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) "has continued its work of reviewing and updating the NIV." Since the CBT's new text, Today's New International Version (TNIV), did not conform to the Colordao Springs Guidelines (CSG), Bradley announced IBS's answer to their dilemma: "IBS is withdrawing its endorsement of the CSG."

So here is the chain of absolute lies and dishonesty that the IBS was not afraid of engaging in.

 

These are those who signed the CSG:
Ken Barker, Secretary, Committee on Bible Translation; Member, Executive Committee of Committee on Bible Translation

Timothy Bayly, Executive Director, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Pastor, Church of the Good Shepherd, Bloomington, IN

Joel Belz, Publisher, God's World Publications

James Dobson, President, Focus on the Family

Lars Dunberg, President, International Bible Society

Wayne Grudem, President, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Charles Jarvis, Executive Vice President, Focus on the Family

John Piper, Member, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Senior Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN

Vern S. Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary

Bruce E. Ryskamp, President and CEO, Zondervan Publishing House

R. C. Sproul, Chairman, Ligonier Ministries

Ron Youngblood, Member, Committee on Bible Translation; Professor of Old Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary West

 

Because, in many instances of the source texts, they were gender neutral. For example, "anthropos" (which is often translated "men") is gender neutral. Adelphoi (typically translated "brother") is gender neutral in many instances.

Admittedly, though, I'm not well-versed in the TNIV translation, so I cannot comment on the TNIV's specific usage. Perhaps there are some among us who have a TNIV or have used it (not simply taking something from a website somewhere) who can comment on it. </font>[/QUOTE]John,

Excellent comments. We might ask why when the original text did not have masculine nuances to it, why the translators of some Bible have added that to their translation... because that has happened as often as the reverse.

I do have a TNIV and have spent some time reviewing it and discussing it with people who are Bible translators in a Bible translation egroup (Btrans). My original position was similar to DeclareHim's below. Eventually, over a year later, I came to realize that though I did not agree with all of the translation decisions of the CBT, I was convinced they were just translating in a manner that they were convinced was more accurate and more clear - in modern language. After all, the Holy Spirit did the same when He inspired the NT quotes from the OT - they are somewhat "free."

What you said about Anthropos and Adelphoi is sound. In fact, when ADELPHOS is plural (ADELPHOI) it first means "brothers and sisters" and only means "brothers" in limited contexts - where it is clear that only males are addressed. The issue I have is translating the singular ADELPHOS as "brother or sister," though it also can mean that.

The CBMW had 10 specific objections to TNIV translation decisions. If you go over them carefully, you will see that perhaos 1/2 of those "guidelines" are linguistically sound, and the other are not or are greatly debated by translators and interpretors. But they have had a positive impact on the CBT, because the 2005 revision of the TNIV has made several changes and has come more in line with the CSG.

The Holy Spirit quoted OT texts in the NT in a gender-inclusive manner. What can we conclude from this?

The examples you gave of translating what was translated as "father's house" in some Bibles as "family" I agree should not have been done. The question becomes, "Did the TNIV translation committee (The CBT, not the IBS - the IBS is not involved at all in translation decisions, and had no business making the press releases they did in 1998 and 2002.) make this change IOT confirm to a feminist agenda or IOT be more clear while maintaining accuracy? (IOW, were they concerned that "father's house" would not be clear to the reader, that they might not understand that this simply referred to David's family?)

IMO it was the latter. I see no evidence of a feminist agenda there. I do agree that it would be better to use "father's house." The decision here was not really a gender-inclusive kind of choice, but a "meaning-based" vs. "formal equivalence" kind of choice. IOW, they did not want to use an expression that is not used today.

BTW, who among that list of signatures you posted has a professional background in Bible translation or exegesis? Only two: Vern S. Poythress and Ron Youngblood. JI Packer also signed the CBMW's statement in 2002 - the CGS. He also endorsed the book by Grudem and Poythress regarding the TNIV, though he had never read it and did not agree with all of the guidelines of the CGS - his endorsement was on the cover. Why would he do that? I suggest that in the heat of the moment he may have thought he was protecting God's Word from a feminist agenda. He admitted not being completely aware of all 10 of the CGD guidelines, and not agreeing with all of them. (Regarding plural ADELPOS - ADELPHOI - he was amazed at what they said in their book, which is one of the 10 CGS guidelines.)

So as water has run under that bridge, it has begun to become clear to some that a feminist agenda is not what the TNIV is about.

FA

 

Following is the TNIV answer regarding the places where they translate differently than the NIV:

As you can see, they say that their intent is to update masculine terminology that "has generic intent" and "is often misunderstood by today's generations." If in their opinion the original intent, as inspired, was masculine, then they leave it masculine.

We may disagree with some of their decisions, but we should not say that their intent is to get rid of masculine references in the Bible.

The reason it is called the Today's NIV is because it is focused on an audience of 18-34.

Thx,

FA

 

Below is an explanation regarding why the IBS withdrew its endorsement of the CSG, which they had signed in 1997:

What he doesn't mention is that the IBS is separate from the CBT - the actual committee that does the translation. The CBT determined to continue to follow what they considered to be sound translation principles, rather than the CSG which the IBS had signed them up to. IOW, the IBS "spoke" out of turn when they signed the CSG without consulting the CBT. Obviously, the IBS was feeling the pressure when so many well-respected Christians, under the leadership of the CBMW, opposed the TNIV and were outraged.

FA

 

Examples of OT quotes in the NT which were made generic... gender-inclusive by the Holy Spirit:

So we see that often the OT used masculine pronouns and masculine Hebrew words and when quoted in the NT the Holy Spirit sometimes used gender-inclusive words in the Greek. That convinces me that it is not inherently wrong to do so. Incidently, if you look at how the Spirit quotes from the OT you will also see a fairly free sort of quoting - along the line of a dynamic equivalent type of translation (meaning-based). Hence, I hesitate to characterize either form of translation philosophy as "wrong." I have my personal preferences, but I'm not going to call something that God did "wrong." Incidently, that was what convinced me regarding G-I translation philosophy.

What I see the Spirit sometimes doing is quoting in a G-I method when the intent in the OT was to refer to both men and women. I think that's the key, and that's what the CBT attempted to determine in the TNIV decisions they made. I do not always agree with them - about 33% of the time I do not. But I acknowledge their philosophy as basically sound overall.

FA

 

Yes but who is to say that they will not start changing as B #3 states "Father" (pater, 'ab) should not be changed to "parent," or "fathers" to "parents," or "ancestors." I'm just suggesting we need to be wary of our support for the TNIV and other versions that keep pushing limits with the Gender issue. Remember the next bounary may well be a mother God or our Parent in Heaven. You never know.

 

Well, that's always possible. Our responsibility is to know what we believe, and why.

And because of the criticism the TNIV received in 2002 they have released a new revision incorporating many of those needed changes. It will be available in stores soon.

And something we need to recognize is that there were gender errors which the TNIV, and other gender-sensitive translations, corrected. In many places in the KJV, for example, TIS (a neuter pronoun - not masculine at all) was usually translated as "a man" rather than the more accurate "a person." And Gruden & Poythress agree with that.

The HCSB and the ESV both generally stick with using "man" for a singular ANTHROPOS, which is not linguistically sound. But those translations are still a big improvement. Forthose who do not care for the TNIV, give the HCSB a shot.

I like the HCSB.

FA

 

Well, that's always possible. Our responsibility is to know what we believe, and why.

And because of the criticism the TNIV received in 2002 they have released a new revision incorporating many of those needed changes. It will be available in stores soon.

And something we need to recognize is that there were gender errors which the TNIV, and other gender-sensitive translations, corrected. In many places in the KJV, for example, TIS (a neuter pronoun - not masculine at all) was usually translated as "a man" rather than the more accurate "a person." And Gruden & Poythress agree with that.

The HCSB and the ESV both generally stick with using "man" for a singular ANTHROPOS, which is not linguistically sound. But those translations are still a big improvement. Forthose who do not care for the TNIV, give the HCSB a shot.

I like the HCSB.

FA

 

"Forthose (sic) who do not care for the TNIV, give the HCSB a shot."

Sadly, most versions have received multiple shots. And most were "drive-by" shootings.

Ed