<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TNIV optimism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tniv-optimism</link>
	<description>A personal walk in a wilderness of words</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:07:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: ElShaddai Edwards</title>
		<link>http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/#comment-506</link>
		<dc:creator>ElShaddai Edwards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/#comment-506</guid>
		<description>I think that the NLT has been &quot;branded&quot; as a personal/devotional Bible and that the public is more willing to accept textual variance from that than from what they perceive as study or church Bibles, e.g. the NIV, NRSV and ESV. My previous church aside, I&#039;d be shocked if a significant percentage of churches reported using the NLT as their pew Bible, whereas the NIV is ubiquitous.

This is the complaint against the TNIV, right? That somehow changing the gender language has made it less accurate than the NIV and thus less appropriate for &quot;serious&quot; Bible use. The NLT seemingly gets a free pass on gender language because it&#039;s coming from a functional (=paraphrase) background, while the TNIV get skewered because the NIV is considered more of a formal (=literal) translation (than the NLT).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that the NLT has been &#8220;branded&#8221; as a personal/devotional Bible and that the public is more willing to accept textual variance from that than from what they perceive as study or church Bibles, e.g. the NIV, NRSV and ESV. My previous church aside, I&#8217;d be shocked if a significant percentage of churches reported using the NLT as their pew Bible, whereas the NIV is ubiquitous.</p>
<p>This is the complaint against the TNIV, right? That somehow changing the gender language has made it less accurate than the NIV and thus less appropriate for &#8220;serious&#8221; Bible use. The NLT seemingly gets a free pass on gender language because it&#8217;s coming from a functional (=paraphrase) background, while the TNIV get skewered because the NIV is considered more of a formal (=literal) translation (than the NLT).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Sam</title>
		<link>http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/#comment-505</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/10/tniv-optimism/#comment-505</guid>
		<description>Yes, I have no doubt that the TNIV will gain in popularity. It&#039;s too good of a translation for readers out there to ignore. Naysayers will eventually have to give in to accepting it. If the majority of the public can accept the NLT, then why not the TNIV?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I have no doubt that the TNIV will gain in popularity. It&#8217;s too good of a translation for readers out there to ignore. Naysayers will eventually have to give in to accepting it. If the majority of the public can accept the NLT, then why not the TNIV?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

