Based on what Kristin said in ABF, I assumed that I had been previously misinformed, and that the TNIV simply changed the phrase “brothers” to “brothers and sisters” (which seems to be permissible from the greek where it is clearly addressing the entire church), changed “mankind” to “humankind” or some other P.C. term and other similar cases which I would find a little odd, but not have a huge problem with . Since it is foolish to claim something simply based on only what you have heard from others, and since I had no specific examples to cite (as I have never looked at a single verse from the tniv) I felt it inappropriate Sunday for me to blindly assert things.
However, I have now done my homework.
For a list of 910 translation inaccuracies in the New Testament alone see http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/category.php
Major denominations have not been pleased either:
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 11-12, 2002, express profound disappointment with the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further RESOLVED, That, consistent with the Bible translation resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1997, we respectfully request that the agencies, boards, and publishing arms of the Southern Baptist Convention refrain from using this translation in our various publications and from using it in printing copies or portions of copies; and be it further RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the TNIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.
From the Presbyterian Church in America:
RESOLVED That the PCA expresses disapproval of the practice of making gender-related or other alterations to the authorially-intended meaning of Scripture in Bible translations. That the PCA cautions its congregations and members, as well as the larger Christian community, against use of the TNIV; That the PCA implores the IBS to refrain from further gender-neutral or other “corrective” efforts in Bible translations.
Let me restate my original assertion: The TNIV goes overboard and gives too much authority to the modern reader’s (silly) preferences over the original author’s words.
On the flip side here is an interesting article by D.A. Carson about the TNIV.
http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Carson.pdf
In order for us to have a fair assessment, we need to evaluate both sides of the argument.
Another highly regarded scholar/theologian who has endorsed the TNIV is John Stott.
http://www.tniv.info/reviews/index.php
I have learned a lot from D.A. Carson and John Stott. They are godly men of the Word and I have the utmost respect for their opinions on anything. I’m sure others would agree as well.
By: Adam Hoagland on April 23, 2007
at 1:13 pm
With all due respect, I think you’re still making claims about the TNIV based on what you’ve heard from others. I would suggest that (1) you get a copy of the TNIV yourself, and (2) you examine these claims for yourself.
There’s been a nasty smear campaign against the TNIV, but in my own investigations, the claims have failed to pan out. In your last statment, you write that the TNIV “gives too much authority to the modern reader’s (silly) preferences over the original author’s words.” Thus you are suggesting that the TNIV is not faithful to the original manuscripts. I would ask that you demonstrate this because I’ve found the TNIV to be very faithful to the originals and much more accurate than the NIV. For more investigating (and to hear another side), please visit us at http://tnivtruth.blogspot.com/index.html
By: R. Mansfield on April 24, 2007
at 12:36 am
I wouldn’t dismiss the resolutions of major denominations as a “nasty smear campaign.”
By: philmummert on April 24, 2007
at 8:20 am
Mr. Mansfield,
I have a copy of the TNIV, but I certainly do not think I am capable of examining these things for myself. Unfortunately, I don’t know Greek-and so the best that I can do is go to more learned men *women* to see what they have to say.
Consider Hebrews 12:7 the,
NIV says, “For what son is not disciplined by his father?”
TNIV says, “For what children are not disciplined by their parents?”
Now, the difference may be subtle, and may seem harmless, which means we must get below the surface. Though my knowledge of Greek is VERY limited, the Greek uses the word for father in this instance is pater in the singular. As we know, this passage is drawing parallels between the discipline our Heavenly Father gives a son and that of an earthly father. Are defenders really claiming that “parent” is more accurate than “father” as a literal interpretation of the expressed meaning of the original Greek? As one profound Greek scholar commented, “If so we suggest that they give it up. In the long run, it only makes them look ridiculous, and undermines confidence in their scholarly abilities,” (V.S. Poythress).
The dangers of these translations lie in the consequences. They compromise the meaning of the true Greek, it is a slippery slope down the hill of compromise (should we refer to God as our Heavenly Parent, since technically speaking he is neither male or female?) That would undermine all of orthodox Christianity. The translators should make EVERY effort to remain true to the Greek. Otherwise, unknowing people, like myself, never know where the compromises are. The biggest thing we should be aware of is the political correctness. I see that the TNIV seeks to be “sensitive” and not “offensive.” Well, there is a problem with this, because the entire Biblical message is offensive to humans. It tells us we are totally depraved, incapable of doing any good, that we deserve hell, on our own, we are damned. That’s an offensive message (at least to the human ego).
For more specifics, I recommend this site: http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2002Analyzing.htm
Dr. Poythress, does a great job showing why the TNIV should be rejected.
By: Kyle on April 24, 2007
at 10:55 am
I just wanted to make a quick correction to the point that Kyle was making. I went to look up Hebrews 12:7 in the TNIV and the verse actually reads, ” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?” The scholars on the translation commitee for the TNIV actually do respect Holy Scripture and God. They would not make God to be female or “it”. Sorry to make this short; I will post more later when I have more time.
By: Kristin Bergman on April 24, 2007
at 1:16 pm
Kristin,
I wasn’t saying that they did not respect the nature of God being our Father. What I was saying, is it seems that there is a slippery slope when we begin to gender neutralize things in Scripture. If we contend that things should be translated as “brothers and sisters” or “parents” instead of the proper interpretation of Greek, why not refer to God as our “Parent” too? After all, God is spirit and cannot be male or female. If they seek to maintain gender neutral language in some areas, this should be extended to all areas. So I never said they “did” translate it that way, I said that a natural consequence flowing from the political correctiveness could lead to this end.
By: Kyle on April 24, 2007
at 2:02 pm
Great topic of conversation! I would have to agree that I dissent from accepting the TNIV as a suitable translation. For various inconsitencies in the Greek and because the main proponents of the TNIV (though not all) are also the ones who are attempting to push egalitarianism. Knowing the Greek I am skeptical at some of the loose interpretations that the TNIV is willing to take. Even if it is something as minor as changing the third person singular to a third person plural– this can have startling implications!
In having done a little research on the use of the TNIV I am surprised that no one has brought up the argument of the TNIV’s translation of ‘The Jews’ to ‘Jewish Leaders.’ This is perhaps a more convincing argument why we should not accept the translation of the TNIV. The BDAG (its the definitive Greek to English lexicon every written) says this of attempting to remove ‘The Jews’ (or some derivative of this concept); ‘many readers or auditors of Bible translations to not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religions-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts…’
Furthermore, I disagree that we can accept ‘Parent’ or even ‘Mother’ as an accurate translation for God. God has revealed Himself definitively in all of Scripture as FATHER. To call this into question, is to question the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and to deny the plenary inspiration, is treading on thin ice. This was not an attempt by the chauvinistic-male-ruled-woman-hating-ego-centric mindset of the day to compare God to being only FATHER. Rather it was the word that God Himself chose to reveal Himself and His attributes through. In attempting to usurp a masculine/feminine distinction (even in the Godhead) is to deny the created order that God established; and perhaps to call into God’s question God’s wisdom in not revealing Himself in both masculine and feminine forms.
The debate goes deeper than merely attempting to find out if the TNIV is a user-friendly translation, it is touching at the heart of the Gospel. Namely, the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of Man.
And if these thoughts aren’t enough, let me close by merely saying, lets compare the *scholars* on both sides. I mean seriously, the crowd is much more stimulating on the side of the dissenters:) Here is a short list… Doriani, Duguid, Duncan, Frame, Grudem, Jones, Mohler, Oliphint, Packer, Poythress, Piper, Trueman, Venema, Water, Colson, Dobson, J. Ligon Duncan III, Susan Hunt, Nancy DeMoss, Kennedy, MacArthur, Mahaney, Ware, etc.
Grace, mercy, and peace to all of you,
S.R.
By: Rutherford on April 24, 2007
at 3:13 pm
Kyle,
I apologize that I misread what you were saying and jumped to conclusions. I am not out to get anybody, but instead would like others to see the TNIV for what is really is and not what some have made it to be or they think it might lead to. I think that your point is reading way into things and the actual point should be that the TNIV DIDN’T translate the verse that way because they are translating what the author’s original words intended. The original author did not ever intend for God to be gender neutral, so the TNIV reflects that. Also, I would like to add that the TNIV does not classify itself as gender-neutral (this is only a label that critics have given it and it has unfortunately stuck), but rather gender-accurate. This means that the translation is conveying to the modern day reader what the original reader was to get out of the passages. It is different because times have changed and saying “sons” is no longer effective in conveying the text accurately
I wish we would stop talking about what the TNIV could lead to and talk about what it is. The fact is that the text is very accurate and yes, I would even say more accurate than the NIV. I’ll stick to the example of Hebrews 12:7. I don’t think that the original author was only talking about sons (and by that I mean the male species). I think, and I would think others would agree, that the intent was for sons and daughters. To add daughters doesn’t lead to anything but accurate translation. Why is this wrong and why is adding the word daughter leading to a slippery slope?
By: Kristin Bergman on April 24, 2007
at 3:34 pm
To clarify the discrepancy above, apparently the TNIV (2002 edition) and the TNIV (2005 edition) differ in how they render the word pater in Hebrews 12:7 – with the former using “parents” and the latter, “father.”
On http://www.tniv.info/reviews/
D.A. Carson says (and by the way, I will quote him word-for-word rather than “thought-for-thought”) :
“Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect, most evangelicals will have accepted the TNIV as a ’standard’ translation, and will wonder what all the fuss was about in their parents’ generation”
(also, by the word “parents” I think he means “fathers and mothers”
Does anyone believe this? You think Zondervan won’t roll out the next best Bible in another 10 years? They’re already tweeking the current ediiton (and apparently in response to criticism rather than scholarship…) None of our kids will ever hear of the Today’s NIV because it will be Yesterday’s NIV.
By: philmummert on April 24, 2007
at 3:48 pm
To comment on Phil’s comment….the 2002 edition was a “draft” for lack of a better word. The 2002 edition did not include the OT. At this point the translation was not ready for complete issue and thus all the fuss. If you would like to read about the whole process, it is on the TNIV website. As of 2002, the text hadn’t gone through all the revising that was planned. TNIV says that translation is a continous journey…language changes with time. The dictionary changes and text book change to reflect the “new” language to better communicate original intent. Why should the Bible be any different? I think it is great that there are scholars committed to this work (and yes, I would still call them scholars). I hope an pray that my children have a Bible that communcates the Words of God as accurately and cleary as possible. If that means that when they are older the TNIV is what they will have, then I feel pretty good about that.
By: Kristin Bergman on April 24, 2007
at 4:22 pm
Kristin,
Thanks for your thoughts! I do think it is important to look at what the TNIV “could” lead to, as opposed to what it is. We must, in part, consider the consequences of becoming more liberal in the translation.
Also, you noted, “The original author did not ever intend for God to be gender neutral, so the TNIV reflects that.” Did the original author “intend” for “brothers” to be translated as “brothers and sisters?” Perhaps, but the fact remains that the Greek word is “brother” not “and sisters.” Would you say it is the job of translation to relay the exact meaning of the text? Or could we rather say, this is what commentaries and preachers are for?
Also, to note. Some have raised objections of rendering words such as “he” to “they” in the Old Testament (as the TNIV does) because it misrepresents a messianic text. This could certainly have severe consequences and does little to reflect what the “original author’s intent” was. Just some more thoughts.
I have enjoyed reading people’s thoughts and look forward to some more discussion.
By: Kyle Borg on April 24, 2007
at 5:32 pm
If we are talking about what certain translations “COULD” lead to, why stop at the TNIV? We could make this argument about the gender-accuracy of any translation if we are talking about what it could lead to. Everyone is making reference to what they don’t like or don’t agree with in the TNIV, I would like to know where these discrepancies are specifically in the Bible and then we can discuss from there.
I wish I could communicate to you how conservative I am on the gender issue. I know what you might be thinking…yeah right! Truth is that I am very serious about respecting the role of males and husbands in the church. I would NEVER be comfortable with reading a Bible that communicated otherwise. I would be very quick to stop using the TNIV if convinced that it was wrong and displeasing to the Lord. However, reading it and using it has only made me feel the opposite.
Please know, that I am not asking everyone to totally agree with me 100% about the TNIV. All I ask is that you open your mind to seeing another point of view and accept that for some Christians, the TNIV is a legitimate choice of translation.
By: Kristin Bergman on April 24, 2007
at 6:28 pm
The article posted by Adam (see Carson above) speaks about the ‘gender-accuracy’ that can be found within various translations, including: ESV, NLT, and TNIV etc. Why is gender-accuracy only an issue when it is found in dynamic translations of the original text? If the TNIV/NLT are incorrect, then the ESV must follow suit and also be incorrect?
I do not believe that the gender-accuracy is incorrect in any of the aforementioned translations, but I am confused as to where the line has been drawn by others.
By: Joel Bergman on April 24, 2007
at 6:53 pm
Taking a different tangent, I think it’s interesting to note why this is even an issue. (Obviously, it wasn’t a major concern 200 years ago.) In the biblical cultures, it was generally understood that men were given a federal role, representing and having authority over their families. (This is why Adam, not Eve, is primarily held responsible for the Fall.) Thus, it made perfect sense to use male-oriented language to refer to all people.
For example, Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (ESV). Here, the TNIV translates the first “man” as “human beings.”
Our culture no longer recognizes the truth of male representation. It recoils at the use of “man” as a generic term, even though such use carries with it biblical truth.
I think that in Gen. 1:27, the TNIV goes too far. I don’t know enough about the TNIV to judge it as a whole, but in this case, it undermines a verse which is used (by Grudem at least) to demonstrate male authority and representation. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s not good, either.
I’ve noticed that, in the case of the ESV, gender-inclusive language seems to be used only when the word in question is ambiguous or implied by the context, not when it is specifically masculine. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
On a less important note, I sometimes get a little annoyed by the use of “human beings” and “people” instead of “man” because they sound more awkward and lame. You poetry types know what I mean.
By: Dave on April 24, 2007
at 7:29 pm
Phil- I don’t think the TNIV will be the leading translation as Carson would suggest. It seems that it has taken a pretty big beating the past couple of years in Christendom. I wonder if he wrote it before all the flak.
Hey, since it’s spring time can we talk about TULIP?
Nothing like another hot topic to bring in the traffic.
BTW, good conversation, keep it up!
By: Adam Hoagland on April 24, 2007
at 7:46 pm
For those of you who haven’t done enough reading and research here are a couple more links.
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/tniv.htm
- Pretty much a book that has tons of information
http://www.salemthesoldier.us/TNIV_concordia_debate.html
- Debate over the TNIV
By: Adam Hoagland on April 25, 2007
at 10:09 am
Is the point about the Jews really going unnoticed?
By: Rutherford on April 25, 2007
at 2:48 pm
First, I wanted to ask a question to Rutherford…I have done some reading on the ‘point about the Jews’ and would like to comment, however I am having trouble making sense of what exactly you are asking. Could you reword your point?
Also, some entries on the blog keep accusing the TNIV of making God feminine and I have yet to find this in my reading. The point keeps getting said without any examples. Please provide these verses; I would like to see them.
In response to Dave’s point about Genesis 1:27, I really don’t see what the problem is. Am I wrong to assume that we can agree that when the NIV reads ‘God created man in his own image’, it implies human beings? Trustworthy scholars say that this is not misinterpreting Hebrew. The fact is that God created both males and females, so to say human beings is not changing the MEANING at all.
That brings me to my next thought. The more research I have done, the more I am convinced we will simply have to agree to disagree. Why does this have to be so black and white? It seems that this debate is really not about the TNIV, but the purpose of translation. It happens to be that I agree with the thought of what the TNIV represents, ‘to render the meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew texts into accurate, clear, and contemporary English’. It seems more important to me to communicate the original thought, meaning, or idea than the actual word. How can Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic be translated word for word into English and capture the original meaning when the languages have nothing in common with English? I bet many of us took some foreign language in high school and found a big struggle to learn the way that language and culture says things and arranges sentences grammatically. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same words and phrases that they do. Does this mean that we have gone against God’s warning of changing and adding to Scripture? I do not think so. That is where the translator’s job comes in to play…to best communicate the original MEANING into contemporary English.
I guess my only request is that you don’t criticize the scholars who translated or endorse the TNIV or the believers who find it a nice fit for their reading. We all serve the same awesome God, who by his grace and mercy loves us all unconditionally. Praise God for his patience with us.
By: Kristin Bergman on April 26, 2007
at 9:21 pm
“I bet many of us took some foreign language in high school and found a big struggle to learn the way that language and culture says things and arranges sentences grammatically.”
This is exactly why I believe in the most literal of translations… many phrases & contextual clues are not expressed in the same fashion when translated into English. A loss of some cultural meanings occurs in this way. As part of my appreciation for these cultures, chosen by God, my desire is to have a better understanding of not only the words but the surroundings in which the words were constructed. I find that this enhances the ‘meaning’ of the Bible/Word tremendously. Examples would be hard to come by for me, but in my studies of Genesis & Exodus alone I learned much more from reading Hebrew directly.
By: Orender on April 26, 2007
at 11:49 pm
I agree with Kristin that debates about what this “could” lead to are ill-posed. I also agree with Kristin that fundamentally this debate goes back to questions about what we expect from translators. The TNIV is simply the natural outgrowth of a translation philosophy that I personally disagree with (and I’m sure twenty years ago, someone warned that this is what the NIV “could” lead to…) When I have time, I want to make a long post explaining what I believe to be fundamental misconceptions about translation, if anyone actually cares to read it. That should help in getting to the center of the debate rather than peripheral issues.
I have read and enjoyed all of the links posted on this discussion, and have learned much from them.
For example, Mark D. Roberts gives some helpful explanations. I had no idea that there are people who consider “them” as an acceptable generic SINGULAR 3rd person pronoun in well-edited English composition. Of course, I know that we talk this way quite a bit, and occasionally write this way, and it is even occasionally acceptable in writing, in some rare situations. (However, if I happen to notice it in editing my writing, I am quick to correct it as bad grammar – especially for writing that I feel should be of high quality… and in my opinion, the Bible should fall into this category). Realizing this different understanding of the English language has explained to me why some people seem to be coming from “different worlds” on part of this discussion.
By: philmummert on April 27, 2007
at 11:56 am