Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Lost in Translation? More Inclusive TNIV Dropped in Favor of Newer NIV

by Eugene Cho 09-02-2009 | 4:00pm
Print
50 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Let me begin by asking a simple question: What Bible translation do you use and why?

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

As a pastor and wannabe theologian, I have, read, and use countless Bibles and various translations in my bookshelves. A couple years ago, I made the switch to the TNIV as my primary devotional Bible reading. Prior to that, I was using mostly the NIV and NRSV. Our pastoral staff (and even our denominational tribe, the ECC) also began teaching from the TNIV as part of our ongoing commitment to exegetical preaching.

I know that the TNIV is not a perfect translation. Regardless of what folks may think, there is no perfect translation, but like other translations I read and respect, the TNIV is a scholarly and faithful translation of the holy scriptures. And while no translation should be held hostage to any particular agendas, I very much appreciated its willingness to take gender inclusivity as one of numerous important considerations.

Listen to what I'm saying carefully: The TNIV is not about gender inclusivity but, sadly, it was pegged and even advertised as such. The TNIV is about the holy scriptures foremost. And while others will strongly disagree, I find it difficult for translations NOT to take into account appropriate gender neutrality and inclusivity, which is why I was very disappointed to read yesterday that the TNIV will be abandoned and cited as a "mistake" by its publishers.

The cultural landscape of evangelicalism and mainstream Christianity can sometimes be schizophrenic. And as of late, with the increasing rise of the macho, masculine, and ultimate fighting Jesus presentation, the TNIV was immensely refreshing and encouraging -- all while being scholarly faithful.

While I understand that there's always more going on behind the scenes that contribute to the pulling of the plug, I see the following as some mistakes: Zondervan's initial presentation of the TNIV to the public; the abysmal support from the publishers since its release and in the face of criticism, and now their "exit strategy," which sends some awful, mixed messages. Having said that and despite being disappointed with the unplugging of the TNIV, I am eager to check out the 2011 NIV

50 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: elite escorts4u

08-02-2011 @ 5:14pm

London Escorts...

London Escorts, 35 Westminster Bridge Road, Camberwell, Greater London, SE1 7JB, 020 3011 2852 ...

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 10:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 8:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: Police Car Auctions

06-26-2011 @ 2:22pm

Car Auctions...

I'm truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Fantastic work!...

by: kosmetyki naturalne

07-21-2011 @ 9:42am

kosmetyki...

This design is incredible! You most certainly know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how ...

by: registry cleaners

07-04-2011 @ 3:19pm

registry cleaners...

This design is spectacular! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, h...

by: London city escorts

08-04-2011 @ 6:56am

SM London Escorts Agency...

SM London Escorts Agency, 33 Belgrave Road, Westminster, London, SW1V 2, 020 3011 7815 ...

by: My Blog Title

05-27-2011 @ 11:54pm

Title...

CMA salaries are as high as other medical jobs.....

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 8:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-05-2009 @ 12:44am

In short, it is the job of translators to do the very best they can to discern the intent of the author, given the variety of factors that must be taken into account. The average American Christian, reading their translated-to-English Bible, hasn't taken courses in exegetical methods. So for translators to ignore certain factors (such as the obvious use of 'adelphos' to denote men and women in extra-Biblical texts) does the average English-Bible reader, dependent on the honest scholarship of the translators, a profound disservice.

by: Intin

08-10-2011 @ 12:04pm

Cave...

[

by: Intin

08-10-2011 @ 12:04pm

Cave...

[

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-05-2009 @ 12:44am

In short, it is the job of translators to do the very best they can to discern the intent of the author, given the variety of factors that must be taken into account. The average American Christian, reading their translated-to-English Bible, hasn't taken courses in exegetical methods. So for translators to ignore certain factors (such as the obvious use of 'adelphos' to denote men and women in extra-Biblical texts) does the average English-Bible reader, dependent on the honest scholarship of the translators, a profound disservice.

by: Taylor Lautner Workout

05-15-2011 @ 7:50am

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

by: Held

07-31-2011 @ 3:19pm

Crimpers...

[

by: Flash Factory

06-13-2011 @ 10:46am

Easy Web Site Builder Says It's An Excellent Posting Well Done?...

Take time to see this they could represent interest too,...

by: Treasure Hunters Roadshow

05-13-2011 @ 11:01am

great...

[..]Saw this awesome post today!!![..]...

by: bielizna damska

07-19-2011 @ 5:48pm

bielizna...

Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group? There's a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Cheers...

by: Butler Auto Auction

07-29-2011 @ 6:26pm

Butler Auto Auction...

Hi there! This is kind of off topic but I need some guidance from an established blog. Is it hard to set up your own blog? I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I'm thinking about setting up my own but I'm not sure where t...

by: Police Auctions

07-25-2011 @ 9:45am

Police Car Auctions...

I was curious if you ever thought of changing the layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text f...

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 10:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: Rivan

08-13-2011 @ 12:35am

Jurpong...

[

by: Rivan

08-13-2011 @ 12:35am

Jurpong...

[

by: gynexin

06-22-2011 @ 9:51pm

For Your Information...

Im naive to blogging and just heard about trackbacks, which I reckon is a way for me to acknowledge your web site through a linkback through my site. I discovered your website in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking sites that I...

by: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979

05-29-2011 @ 12:44am

This page {wasnt|was not} working {earlier|this morning|yesterday}. i tried {accesing|viewing|visiting} it but it timed out {4-5|5-6|3-4} times now but i can access it now. Why {did|does} this {happen|occur}? Am i the only one having this {issue|prob...

I appologize, but what theme is in use here? Is it a private theme? If you dont mind, can you post it here? It totally kicks a**:D I'll be be back! Thank you !!!...

by: ando

09-02-2009 @ 3:35pm

In 1997, some friends went to England to live for a year. They brought us back a "contraband" TNIV. For awhile, I felt like a common criminal. I guess I'll hold onto it for awhile longer....

In our ECC, the NRSV is used for Scripture reading. I prefer the TNIV, but that's just a personal issue.

by: DCDemocrat

09-02-2009 @ 4:02pm

I am a Catholic, and I use the translation current in the liturgical practice of my church, the New American Bible.

by: car auctions melbourne

08-16-2011 @ 12:55pm

Long Dresses For Women...

I was curious if you ever considered changing the layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text f...

by: Flash Website Design

07-16-2011 @ 4:05am

Web Site Builders...

Fantastic story reckoned we want to back-link to this... fyi have one read the news concerning Middle East has now got more difficulties too ?...

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-02-2009 @ 6:26pm

What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now.

This is about money, plain and simple. Zondervan would rather keep its constituency happy than worry about faulty theology or being faithful to the text (which, when Paul says "brothers," means, "brothers and sisters..." without a doubt!)...

As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call. For example, Romans 3:22 in the NIV says that the righteousness of God is "from God" and "comes through faith in Jesus...."... the TNIV is essentially the same; is says that righteousness "is given through faith..." But the Greek text says nothing about righteousness "coming" or "being given," ... which you may find to be an insignificant issue, except that many Bible scholars today are discussing the significance of this very thing! For my money, we are better served with a translation that does not "fill in the gaps" of the text too much, except where necessary for readability purposes. (The NASB is ridiculous.)

For academic purposes then, the RSV and the NRSV are the best combo of readability and accuracy available (that are based off of the oldest biblical manuscripts), the TNIV is still very good in general; translations like the NASB and the NKJV claim to be more accurate but are actually based off inferior manuscripts and translations.) But even though I grew up with the NIV, I'm finding its problems numerous as well, and the lack of inclusive language towards women is very problematic. Shame on Zondervan.

by: Cling

08-14-2011 @ 2:55am

Far...

[

by: clint32

09-02-2009 @ 8:45pm

Very disappointing. Once again politics, the almighty dollar and our culture of fear rule the day. The New Living Translation went gender-neutral years ago and nobody said a word.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 8:56pm

I'm more than a bit dismayed by this news, especially as I feel that it cannot help but be seen as a "victory" by those opposed to non-gender-exclusive translations (even if the "mistake" was not about the TNIV's "gender neutrality" per se. There's apparently debate about Zondervan's intentions from what I've been able to read, and concern that some statements are being taken out of context.). I'm also a bit annoyed that the news happens mere days after I self-published an e-book of a modern language version of the 1666 work "Women's Speaking Justified" that used the TNIV for its scripture references (I won't post a link here, since this isn't the place for such an advertisement).

After years of advocating for this translation, people will now think that it's somehow invalid, even though the scholarship behind it remains solid.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 9:02pm

"What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now."

I'm very concerned about this, but there seems to be some question about whether that is indeed what he means. I await confirmation with some trepidation.

"As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call."

Well, the fact that it IS a committee, made of people from varying perspectives, does help. But this simply goes to show why one should use translations of different translation philosophies in your study. Use a "thought-for-thought" AND a "word-for-word" translation, for example. No one philosophy is "best" for ALL purposes.

by: lumens

09-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

I think there are a host of reasons why the version didn't take off. Part of the reason is the sheer popularity of the NIV itself. The hubbub surrounding gender inclusive language probably gave the impression that the only reason to buy this translation is to be treated to gender inclusive language, which just isn't all that important to most people.

As far as new versions are concerned, the ESV bible has stolen a lot of thunder, by virtue of incorporating computerized textual models which were previously unavailable.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-02-2009 @ 10:01pm

Will the 2011 NIV still be using the word "homosexual" and related words? There is no word in the original language texts that can be translated as "homosexual."

The NIV translates "malakoi" as "male prostitutes." But, the Greek word "pornos" (plural - pornoi) literally means "male prostitute."

I use several translations of the Bible and compare the words in them with what is in the Hebrew and Greek Texts.

I don't call myself a theologian; but, I do have 24 undergrad semester hours in the Bible and over 30 graduate level hours in biblical theology and historical studies.

by: ando

09-02-2009 @ 3:35pm

In 1997, some friends went to England to live for a year. They brought us back a "contraband" TNIV. For awhile, I felt like a common criminal. I guess I'll hold onto it for awhile longer....

In our ECC, the NRSV is used for Scripture reading. I prefer the TNIV, but that's just a personal issue.

by: xfree9

09-02-2009 @ 11:57pm

That sucks. I love the TNIV... I got a free wide margin version in seminary, and I still use it.

by: DCDemocrat

09-02-2009 @ 4:02pm

I am a Catholic, and I use the translation current in the liturgical practice of my church, the New American Bible.

by: qiziq

09-03-2009 @ 12:57am

Joshlunde, I agree with you that this decision is driven by money (and politics). I also support the cause of gender inclusivity. I can't help but wonder, though if you aren't being inconsistent in your anlysis when you speak of the clear meaning (in other words "intent") of the text on the one hand and desire a translation that "does not fill in the gaps" on the other.

I believe we should be trying to ferret out what was the intent of the author, but that is the task of exegesis, not translation!

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-02-2009 @ 6:26pm

What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now.

This is about money, plain and simple. Zondervan would rather keep its constituency happy than worry about faulty theology or being faithful to the text (which, when Paul says "brothers," means, "brothers and sisters..." without a doubt!)...

As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call. For example, Romans 3:22 in the NIV says that the righteousness of God is "from God" and "comes through faith in Jesus...."... the TNIV is essentially the same; is says that righteousness "is given through faith..." But the Greek text says nothing about righteousness "coming" or "being given," ... which you may find to be an insignificant issue, except that many Bible scholars today are discussing the significance of this very thing! For my money, we are better served with a translation that does not "fill in the gaps" of the text too much, except where necessary for readability purposes. (The NASB is ridiculous.)

For academic purposes then, the RSV and the NRSV are the best combo of readability and accuracy available (that are based off of the oldest biblical manuscripts), the TNIV is still very good in general; translations like the NASB and the NKJV claim to be more accurate but are actually based off inferior manuscripts and translations.) But even though I grew up with the NIV, I'm finding its problems numerous as well, and the lack of inclusive language towards women is very problematic. Shame on Zondervan.

by: clint32

09-02-2009 @ 8:45pm

Very disappointing. Once again politics, the almighty dollar and our culture of fear rule the day. The New Living Translation went gender-neutral years ago and nobody said a word.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 8:56pm

I'm more than a bit dismayed by this news, especially as I feel that it cannot help but be seen as a "victory" by those opposed to non-gender-exclusive translations (even if the "mistake" was not about the TNIV's "gender neutrality" per se. There's apparently debate about Zondervan's intentions from what I've been able to read, and concern that some statements are being taken out of context.). I'm also a bit annoyed that the news happens mere days after I self-published an e-book of a modern language version of the 1666 work "Women's Speaking Justified" that used the TNIV for its scripture references (I won't post a link here, since this isn't the place for such an advertisement).

After years of advocating for this translation, people will now think that it's somehow invalid, even though the scholarship behind it remains solid.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 9:02pm

"What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now."

I'm very concerned about this, but there seems to be some question about whether that is indeed what he means. I await confirmation with some trepidation.

"As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call."

Well, the fact that it IS a committee, made of people from varying perspectives, does help. But this simply goes to show why one should use translations of different translation philosophies in your study. Use a "thought-for-thought" AND a "word-for-word" translation, for example. No one philosophy is "best" for ALL purposes.

by: nissan juke tuning

07-19-2011 @ 4:33am

nissan juke test...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: lumens

09-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

I think there are a host of reasons why the version didn't take off. Part of the reason is the sheer popularity of the NIV itself. The hubbub surrounding gender inclusive language probably gave the impression that the only reason to buy this translation is to be treated to gender inclusive language, which just isn't all that important to most people.

As far as new versions are concerned, the ESV bible has stolen a lot of thunder, by virtue of incorporating computerized textual models which were previously unavailable.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-02-2009 @ 10:01pm

Will the 2011 NIV still be using the word "homosexual" and related words? There is no word in the original language texts that can be translated as "homosexual."

The NIV translates "malakoi" as "male prostitutes." But, the Greek word "pornos" (plural - pornoi) literally means "male prostitute."

I use several translations of the Bible and compare the words in them with what is in the Hebrew and Greek Texts.

I don't call myself a theologian; but, I do have 24 undergrad semester hours in the Bible and over 30 graduate level hours in biblical theology and historical studies.

by: xfree9

09-02-2009 @ 11:57pm

That sucks. I love the TNIV... I got a free wide margin version in seminary, and I still use it.

by: qiziq

09-03-2009 @ 12:57am

Joshlunde, I agree with you that this decision is driven by money (and politics). I also support the cause of gender inclusivity. I can't help but wonder, though if you aren't being inconsistent in your anlysis when you speak of the clear meaning (in other words "intent") of the text on the one hand and desire a translation that "does not fill in the gaps" on the other.

I believe we should be trying to ferret out what was the intent of the author, but that is the task of exegesis, not translation!

by: Ress

08-04-2011 @ 5:01pm

Harja...

[

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ando

09-02-2009 @ 3:35pm

In 1997, some friends went to England to live for a year. They brought us back a "contraband" TNIV. For awhile, I felt like a common criminal. I guess I'll hold onto it for awhile longer....

In our ECC, the NRSV is used for Scripture reading. I prefer the TNIV, but that's just a personal issue.

by: ando

09-02-2009 @ 3:35pm

In 1997, some friends went to England to live for a year. They brought us back a "contraband" TNIV. For awhile, I felt like a common criminal. I guess I'll hold onto it for awhile longer....

In our ECC, the NRSV is used for Scripture reading. I prefer the TNIV, but that's just a personal issue.

by: DCDemocrat

09-02-2009 @ 4:02pm

I am a Catholic, and I use the translation current in the liturgical practice of my church, the New American Bible.

by: DCDemocrat

09-02-2009 @ 4:02pm

I am a Catholic, and I use the translation current in the liturgical practice of my church, the New American Bible.

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-02-2009 @ 6:26pm

What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now.

This is about money, plain and simple. Zondervan would rather keep its constituency happy than worry about faulty theology or being faithful to the text (which, when Paul says "brothers," means, "brothers and sisters..." without a doubt!)...

As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call. For example, Romans 3:22 in the NIV says that the righteousness of God is "from God" and "comes through faith in Jesus...."... the TNIV is essentially the same; is says that righteousness "is given through faith..." But the Greek text says nothing about righteousness "coming" or "being given," ... which you may find to be an insignificant issue, except that many Bible scholars today are discussing the significance of this very thing! For my money, we are better served with a translation that does not "fill in the gaps" of the text too much, except where necessary for readability purposes. (The NASB is ridiculous.)

For academic purposes then, the RSV and the NRSV are the best combo of readability and accuracy available (that are based off of the oldest biblical manuscripts), the TNIV is still very good in general; translations like the NASB and the NKJV claim to be more accurate but are actually based off inferior manuscripts and translations.) But even though I grew up with the NIV, I'm finding its problems numerous as well, and the lack of inclusive language towards women is very problematic. Shame on Zondervan.

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-02-2009 @ 6:26pm

What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now.

This is about money, plain and simple. Zondervan would rather keep its constituency happy than worry about faulty theology or being faithful to the text (which, when Paul says "brothers," means, "brothers and sisters..." without a doubt!)...

As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call. For example, Romans 3:22 in the NIV says that the righteousness of God is "from God" and "comes through faith in Jesus...."... the TNIV is essentially the same; is says that righteousness "is given through faith..." But the Greek text says nothing about righteousness "coming" or "being given," ... which you may find to be an insignificant issue, except that many Bible scholars today are discussing the significance of this very thing! For my money, we are better served with a translation that does not "fill in the gaps" of the text too much, except where necessary for readability purposes. (The NASB is ridiculous.)

For academic purposes then, the RSV and the NRSV are the best combo of readability and accuracy available (that are based off of the oldest biblical manuscripts), the TNIV is still very good in general; translations like the NASB and the NKJV claim to be more accurate but are actually based off inferior manuscripts and translations.) But even though I grew up with the NIV, I'm finding its problems numerous as well, and the lack of inclusive language towards women is very problematic. Shame on Zondervan.

by: clint32

09-02-2009 @ 8:45pm

Very disappointing. Once again politics, the almighty dollar and our culture of fear rule the day. The New Living Translation went gender-neutral years ago and nobody said a word.

by: clint32

09-02-2009 @ 8:45pm

Very disappointing. Once again politics, the almighty dollar and our culture of fear rule the day. The New Living Translation went gender-neutral years ago and nobody said a word.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 8:56pm

I'm more than a bit dismayed by this news, especially as I feel that it cannot help but be seen as a "victory" by those opposed to non-gender-exclusive translations (even if the "mistake" was not about the TNIV's "gender neutrality" per se. There's apparently debate about Zondervan's intentions from what I've been able to read, and concern that some statements are being taken out of context.). I'm also a bit annoyed that the news happens mere days after I self-published an e-book of a modern language version of the 1666 work "Women's Speaking Justified" that used the TNIV for its scripture references (I won't post a link here, since this isn't the place for such an advertisement).

After years of advocating for this translation, people will now think that it's somehow invalid, even though the scholarship behind it remains solid.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 8:56pm

I'm more than a bit dismayed by this news, especially as I feel that it cannot help but be seen as a "victory" by those opposed to non-gender-exclusive translations (even if the "mistake" was not about the TNIV's "gender neutrality" per se. There's apparently debate about Zondervan's intentions from what I've been able to read, and concern that some statements are being taken out of context.). I'm also a bit annoyed that the news happens mere days after I self-published an e-book of a modern language version of the 1666 work "Women's Speaking Justified" that used the TNIV for its scripture references (I won't post a link here, since this isn't the place for such an advertisement).

After years of advocating for this translation, people will now think that it's somehow invalid, even though the scholarship behind it remains solid.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 9:02pm

"What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now."

I'm very concerned about this, but there seems to be some question about whether that is indeed what he means. I await confirmation with some trepidation.

"As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call."

Well, the fact that it IS a committee, made of people from varying perspectives, does help. But this simply goes to show why one should use translations of different translation philosophies in your study. Use a "thought-for-thought" AND a "word-for-word" translation, for example. No one philosophy is "best" for ALL purposes.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

09-02-2009 @ 9:02pm

"What Moo means is, we're not going to call it the TNIV anymore, and we're going to get rid of the gender-inclusive language (the overwhelmingly predominant reason for the controversy), and the rest will basically be the same as the TNIV is now."

I'm very concerned about this, but there seems to be some question about whether that is indeed what he means. I await confirmation with some trepidation.

"As for preferred translations, while the TNIV corrects many of the problems the NIV had, you still run into difficulties with a "thought-for-thought" translation, which both versions of the NIV are.... because it relies on the theological leanings of the translation committee to make the call."

Well, the fact that it IS a committee, made of people from varying perspectives, does help. But this simply goes to show why one should use translations of different translation philosophies in your study. Use a "thought-for-thought" AND a "word-for-word" translation, for example. No one philosophy is "best" for ALL purposes.

by: lumens

09-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

I think there are a host of reasons why the version didn't take off. Part of the reason is the sheer popularity of the NIV itself. The hubbub surrounding gender inclusive language probably gave the impression that the only reason to buy this translation is to be treated to gender inclusive language, which just isn't all that important to most people.

As far as new versions are concerned, the ESV bible has stolen a lot of thunder, by virtue of incorporating computerized textual models which were previously unavailable.

by: lumens

09-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

I think there are a host of reasons why the version didn't take off. Part of the reason is the sheer popularity of the NIV itself. The hubbub surrounding gender inclusive language probably gave the impression that the only reason to buy this translation is to be treated to gender inclusive language, which just isn't all that important to most people.

As far as new versions are concerned, the ESV bible has stolen a lot of thunder, by virtue of incorporating computerized textual models which were previously unavailable.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-02-2009 @ 10:01pm

Will the 2011 NIV still be using the word "homosexual" and related words? There is no word in the original language texts that can be translated as "homosexual."

The NIV translates "malakoi" as "male prostitutes." But, the Greek word "pornos" (plural - pornoi) literally means "male prostitute."

I use several translations of the Bible and compare the words in them with what is in the Hebrew and Greek Texts.

I don't call myself a theologian; but, I do have 24 undergrad semester hours in the Bible and over 30 graduate level hours in biblical theology and historical studies.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-02-2009 @ 10:01pm

Will the 2011 NIV still be using the word "homosexual" and related words? There is no word in the original language texts that can be translated as "homosexual."

The NIV translates "malakoi" as "male prostitutes." But, the Greek word "pornos" (plural - pornoi) literally means "male prostitute."

I use several translations of the Bible and compare the words in them with what is in the Hebrew and Greek Texts.

I don't call myself a theologian; but, I do have 24 undergrad semester hours in the Bible and over 30 graduate level hours in biblical theology and historical studies.

by: xfree9

09-02-2009 @ 11:57pm

That sucks. I love the TNIV... I got a free wide margin version in seminary, and I still use it.

by: xfree9

09-02-2009 @ 11:57pm

That sucks. I love the TNIV... I got a free wide margin version in seminary, and I still use it.

by: qiziq

09-03-2009 @ 12:57am

Joshlunde, I agree with you that this decision is driven by money (and politics). I also support the cause of gender inclusivity. I can't help but wonder, though if you aren't being inconsistent in your anlysis when you speak of the clear meaning (in other words "intent") of the text on the one hand and desire a translation that "does not fill in the gaps" on the other.

I believe we should be trying to ferret out what was the intent of the author, but that is the task of exegesis, not translation!

by: qiziq

09-03-2009 @ 12:57am

Joshlunde, I agree with you that this decision is driven by money (and politics). I also support the cause of gender inclusivity. I can't help but wonder, though if you aren't being inconsistent in your anlysis when you speak of the clear meaning (in other words "intent") of the text on the one hand and desire a translation that "does not fill in the gaps" on the other.

I believe we should be trying to ferret out what was the intent of the author, but that is the task of exegesis, not translation!

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-05-2009 @ 12:44am

In short, it is the job of translators to do the very best they can to discern the intent of the author, given the variety of factors that must be taken into account. The average American Christian, reading their translated-to-English Bible, hasn't taken courses in exegetical methods. So for translators to ignore certain factors (such as the obvious use of 'adelphos' to denote men and women in extra-Biblical texts) does the average English-Bible reader, dependent on the honest scholarship of the translators, a profound disservice.

by: joshlunde_whitler

09-05-2009 @ 12:44am

In short, it is the job of translators to do the very best they can to discern the intent of the author, given the variety of factors that must be taken into account. The average American Christian, reading their translated-to-English Bible, hasn't taken courses in exegetical methods. So for translators to ignore certain factors (such as the obvious use of 'adelphos' to denote men and women in extra-Biblical texts) does the average English-Bible reader, dependent on the honest scholarship of the translators, a profound disservice.

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 8:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 8:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 10:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: concerned127

09-10-2009 @ 10:56pm

I agree that they RSV is a superior translation academically, but would take it a bit further. (I intentionally am excluding the NRSV which is very inferior and not worth noting) The RSV is the most accurate translation available and easily readable; for folks who find it difficult there are other translations that not only change, but mask the intent of the authors.

The problem with gender inclusive language is that it is not what was meant. The Bible was written in a gender exclusive context and to pretend that Paul was as open to the idea of gender equality as we are today, is either silly or a willful lie. Whether we view him as a Saint, a Holy Man, or whatever term of respect and honour we give him, it is Very important to acknowledge that his views on societal structure are not the same as today. He viewed women as inferior, slavery as ok and homosexuality as an abomination. That is, of course, if you believe a single man named Paul actually existed and wrote all those books the way we read them today. ;)

To end: A lack of gender inclusive language is not a problem, it is recognizing what was written the way it was written. To change that is to try to fit something written a couple thousand years ago into our contemporary view of the world. This is misleading to ourselves and to others we present it with. Biblical scholars and translators have a duty to be faithful to the "original" texts that they use. Otherwise we should never have invented the printing press and just let the Priests read it all to us.

by: Treasure Hunters Roadshow

05-13-2011 @ 11:01am

great...

[..]Saw this awesome post today!!![..]...

by: Taylor Lautner Workout

05-15-2011 @ 7:50am

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

by: My Blog Title

05-27-2011 @ 11:54pm

Title...

CMA salaries are as high as other medical jobs.....

by: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979

05-29-2011 @ 12:44am

This page {wasnt|was not} working {earlier|this morning|yesterday}. i tried {accesing|viewing|visiting} it but it timed out {4-5|5-6|3-4} times now but i can access it now. Why {did|does} this {happen|occur}? Am i the only one having this {issue|prob...

I appologize, but what theme is in use here? Is it a private theme? If you dont mind, can you post it here? It totally kicks a**:D I'll be be back! Thank you !!!...

by: Flash Factory

06-13-2011 @ 10:46am

Easy Web Site Builder Says It's An Excellent Posting Well Done?...

Take time to see this they could represent interest too,...

by: gynexin

06-22-2011 @ 9:51pm

For Your Information...

Im naive to blogging and just heard about trackbacks, which I reckon is a way for me to acknowledge your web site through a linkback through my site. I discovered your website in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking sites that I...

by: Police Car Auctions

06-26-2011 @ 2:22pm

Car Auctions...

I'm truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Fantastic work!...

by: registry cleaners

07-04-2011 @ 3:19pm

registry cleaners...

This design is spectacular! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, h...

by: Flash Website Design

07-16-2011 @ 4:05am

Web Site Builders...

Fantastic story reckoned we want to back-link to this... fyi have one read the news concerning Middle East has now got more difficulties too ?...

by: nissan juke tuning

07-19-2011 @ 4:33am

nissan juke test...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: bielizna damska

07-19-2011 @ 5:48pm

bielizna...

Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group? There's a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Cheers...

by: kosmetyki naturalne

07-21-2011 @ 9:42am

kosmetyki...

This design is incredible! You most certainly know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how ...

by: Police Auctions

07-25-2011 @ 9:45am

Police Car Auctions...

I was curious if you ever thought of changing the layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text f...

by: Butler Auto Auction

07-29-2011 @ 6:26pm

Butler Auto Auction...

Hi there! This is kind of off topic but I need some guidance from an established blog. Is it hard to set up your own blog? I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I'm thinking about setting up my own but I'm not sure where t...

by: Held

07-31-2011 @ 3:19pm

Crimpers...

[

by: elite escorts4u

08-02-2011 @ 5:14pm

London Escorts...

London Escorts, 35 Westminster Bridge Road, Camberwell, Greater London, SE1 7JB, 020 3011 2852 ...

by: London city escorts

08-04-2011 @ 6:56am

SM London Escorts Agency...

SM London Escorts Agency, 33 Belgrave Road, Westminster, London, SW1V 2, 020 3011 7815 ...

by: Ress

08-04-2011 @ 5:01pm

Harja...

[

by: Intin

08-10-2011 @ 12:04pm

Cave...

[

by: Intin

08-10-2011 @ 12:04pm

Cave...

[

by: Rivan

08-13-2011 @ 12:35am

Jurpong...

[

by: Rivan

08-13-2011 @ 12:35am

Jurpong...

[

by: Cling

08-14-2011 @ 2:55am

Far...

[

by: car auctions melbourne

08-16-2011 @ 12:55pm

Long Dresses For Women...

I was curious if you ever considered changing the layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text f...