This blog started, in part, to document my search for a new Bible translation that would replace my venerable NASB as my primary reading and study Bible. Of late, I’ve been bouncing between the TNIV, HCSB and REB translations, struggling with what importance (if any) to place on issues like gender accuracy, associations with denominations/special interest groups, and the actual availability of physical editions. As much as I like and favor the REB, this will ultimately come down to a choice between the HCSB vs. TNIV, two recent translations that straddle the minefield between literal and dynamic translation philosophies.
One of the criteria in that search was to take into consideration what translation my church was using; however, as I’ve written elsewhere, “my church” has changed during the timeframe of this search. Our old church used the NLTse as its pew Bible; the new church uses the NIV.
I asked one of the pastors if they would be moving to the TNIV, but they will not due to gender issue concerns (never mind that the NLT is an “approved” version to preach from!). This conclusion was made quickly, as part of a passing comment, so I’ll try to engage the question again at a more appropriate time.
It’s far easier for me to read along to NIV scripture with a TNIV than it is a ESV or HCSB or NASB or NLT… I can use the TNIV without having to spend mental time synchronizing what the pastor is saying with what I’m reading in my Bible – I can’t state the importance of this enough: there is a time for studying and tracking down differences in translations – the Sunday sermon is not that time.
So, on this issue at least, the TNIV now gets the an edge in my search.
I really think you should clarify this issue before you join the new church. Has TNIV been rejected because the church takes a strongly complementarian line? Will your children be taught that boys are to lead and girls only to help? Is that what you want them to be taught? Or has TNIV been rejected only because the pastors have read ignorantly? While I would not quite suggest that I would not join a church whose pastors are so ignorant, I would want to check first that they are prepared for their preconceptions on this issue to be challenged by the truth.
Thanks, Peter. Definitely lots of questions to think about and pursue before we consider full membership… I appreciate your candid insight.
[...] is sufficient « Free will and the captivity of your mind Choosing a modern Bible translation, part 4 [...]
The problem that I have with the TNIV is that it is harder to see Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as Jesus said in Luke 24:26-27 “Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
When the TNIV changes the “he” (which refers to the Messiah) to “they” for gender neutral philosphy it diffently making seeing Christ in the Old Testament a heck of a lot harder. I like to read from different translations and when I can see Christ in the Old Testament from the literal translations of the Bible, but not in the TNIV than I wonder what good is the TNIV when it removes or hides Christ in the Old Testament for the sake of gender neutral philosphy.
There is a lot of scholars that I respect to has spoken against the TNIV. Just go to http://www.no-tniv.com/ and click on statement of concern.
And there’s the rub, Randy. Do we translate and/or read the OT texts with Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of messianic language or do we try to preserve/read them in the context of their immediate application to the original recipients? Or both. Is the OT “just” a very long preface to Jesus or is it an autonomous document of a nation and people with a unique relationship with God. Jesus interpreted the scriptures on the road to Emmaus. Is that sufficient justification for Christians to exclusively do the same via Bible translation today?
I’ve expanded a bit more on this topic in a new post.
[...] He is sufficient « Choosing a modern Bible translation, part 4 [...]
Randy mentions “When the TNIV changes the “he” (which refers to the Messiah) to “they” for gender neutral philosphy”
Where has this been done, Randy?
As for the scholars you respect, unfortunately none of them is a recognised expert on Bible translation principles. Their concerns are mostly based on ignorance of how language and translation work. Try reading what professional Bible translators have to say about TNIV and the campaign against it, see for example the TNIV Truth blog.
Peter Kirk mentions “As for the scholars you respect, unfortunately none of them is a recognised expert on Bible translation principles. Their concerns are mostly based on ignorance of how language and translation work. Try reading what professional Bible translators have to say about TNIV and the campaign against it, see for example the TNIV Truth blog.”
From a Professional translation of the Bible the HCSB website
http://www.broadmanholman.com/hcsb/faq5.asp
The Gender Language Policy in Bible Translation
Some people today ignore the Bible’s teachings on distinctive roles of men and women in family and church and have an agenda to eliminate those distinctions in every arena of life. These people have begun a program to engineer the removal of a perceived male bias in the English language. The targets of this program have been such traditional linguistic practices as the generic use of “man” or “men,” as well as “he,” “him,” and “his.”
A group of Bible scholars, translators, and other evangelical leaders met in 1997 to
respond to this issue as it affects Bible translation. This group produced the “Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture” (adopted May 27, 1997 and revised September 9, 1997). The Holman CSB® was produced in accordance with these guidelines.
The goal of the Holman CSB translators has not been to promote a cultural ideology but to faithfully translate the Bible. While the Holman CSB avoids using “man” or “he” unnecessarily, the translation does not restructure sentences to avoid them when they are in the text. For example, Holman CSB translators have not changed “him” to “you” or to “them,” neither have they avoided other masculine words such as “father” or “son” by translating them in generic terms such as “parent” or “child.”
These people have begun a program to engineer the removal of a perceived male bias in the English language.
Sadly, I am reminded of reading my college’s alumni magazine and seeing a letter from a male alumnus in response to a prior article about women choosing to take their husband’s name (or not). I don’t have the specific quote in front of me, but the gist was that he and his wife had decided to combine their last names into a new name, in part because her last name was “…son”, which he called “an offending male suffix”. “These people” are out there…
Randy, those who actually developed the Colorado Springs Guidelines are not Bible translation scholars. They were pastors and seminary professors without experience in Bible translation. There were one or two men who had experience in Bible translation since they were on the team that translated and revised the NIV. These men attended the larger meeting from which a smaller group created the guidelines. The guidelines are not based on solid Bible translation principles. They were hurriedly put together and even those who made them recognized that they needed revision and later revised them further. They need even more revision to bring them into better alignment with the facts of the biblical languages and good Bible translation principles.
I invite you to visit out TNIV Truth blog where we try to tell the truth about the TNIV. It is not a perfect translation, and we are inviting input so that it can be improved. Its translators welcome suggestions for improvement. But it is also not deserving of the uninformed criticism which it has received. I know of no Bible translation scholars who agree with the criticisms of the TNIV. Even the revisions in the messianic passages of the Old Testament have made the TNIV more accurate. It is necessary to do independent study, apart from those who criticize the TNIV so quickly, to find out why the TNIV is even more accurate than the NIV.
I am a Bible translator myself and I have been deeply concerned about the shallow scholarship and slander which has been brought against the TNIV. It is not enough that those who criticize the TNIV are godly men who preach so well and are highly respected. To be able to speak adequately on Bible translation issues one needs, also, to have sufficient training, education, and experience to speak accurately on the Bible translation matters involved.
Join us on the TNIV Truth blog and we can deal with these issues there, also. We try to be completely fair and honest. We are willing to criticize the TNIV ourselves when it truly needs revision.
Wayne says “I know of no Bible translation scholars who agree with the criticisms of the TNIV.”
Peter say “Try reading what professional Bible translators have to say about TNIV.”
I have read what a professional Bible translator had to say and he does criticize the TNIV so I know what both of you are saying is not based on the truth. Why should I visit your website when the very first reason you give is not based on truth?
But thanks anyways, you two have given me another reason to not trust the TNIV. A faulty foundation.
[...] I’d previously been using the TNIV as a base text, well at least for a month or so since my last post on choosing a translation. But for the past week or two, I’ve had a different translation on [...]
Hi all,
First off….all three translations mentioned (and indeed all translations based on Alexandrian texts) are faulty.
The only English translation that should be used is the venerable and irrefutable King James (Authorised) Version.
You only need to Google this and you will see why.
Our Church insists on using the NIV but I use my KJV. I do possess almost all translations which includes the Spanish Reina-Valera 1960. I use these for comparison only. I have even more versions on e-Sword.
My devotional reading is from a plain text KJV and my main Study Bible is the KJV Ryrie Study Bible.
I believe that this gender-neutrality of modern translations is a heresy of the highest order and borders on idolatry. Man, yet again, is pressurised by “society” to conform to society’s “niceties” and political correctness, and turns its back on God’s Commandments/Law.
I have stopped using all translations based on the “minority texts”.
MACnoodle…
Based on your comments about the KJV, I am wondering if you use the original 1611 version? Otherwise, you too are using a “modernized” translation. If not, you may want to get a copy. This may cause you to adjust your position.
Regardless, I pray that God blesses you my brother.
TAG