Bookman

Zondervan has done it again. Here's the <a href="http://www.tniv.info/newsrelease/2002_01_28.php" target="_blank">press release</a>. Touted by some in the industry as a "more PC" bible, much is being made of this translation's more gender-neutral stance. Some other concessions have also been made to modern language and usage.

Zondervan has put up a nice site at <a href="http://www.tniv.info" target="_blank">www.tniv.info</a> with some FAQ and the translation itself.

There's your topic. Talk amongst yourselves.

Bookman

CX

Only 7% of the language has changed between TNIV and NIV so it's probably a decent translation. My only concern is this:

Generic language is used where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and
women. For example, "sons of God" becomes "children of God," and "brothers" becomes "brothers
and sisters" when it is clear the original text never intended any exclusive male gender reference.

I think it is hard to say what the original authors were thinking on such a subtlke point. In the first case Greek is gender specific in syntax the same way romance languages like French and Spanish are. Which is to say gender is part of the gramatical structure and has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. The other point is that Judaism and early Xianity as an offshoot of Judaism were both patriarchal. They would have been relatively unconcerned with issues related to women (except insofar as it affected men such as a man's right to remuneration if his wife is raped). It is all well and good to read 21st century social mores into a 1st century text, but that doesn't mean it reflects the intent of the autographs.

Albright

There's no doubt that this translation will stir up quite a bit of controversy in the Evangelical community. In the last few years there have been a number of books written from Evangelical presses critiquing the methodology of "gender neutral"
translations as well as the the translation philosophy behind the TNIV. Most of the noise will undoubtedly come from those who hold to a traditional approach to women and family issues. i.e.. James Dobson ect. But there will no doubt be those who endorse the revision.

I don't find this new revision of the NIV surprising since it appears to be another
evidence of Evangelicalism's struggle to find it's place in this present society.

Albright

aikido7

Every translation is a betrayal, but like the Bible indicates concerning women--you can't live with them, and you can't live without them.

My concern about being "gender-inclusive" is that we might become deadened to the first-century context of patriarchy which can illuminate scriptural meanings for us in the 21st. I am thinking specifically about the parables of Jesus when he makes a strong case for God being unclean/hidden and feminine in--for example--his Parable of the Leaven.

Modern scholarship is now showing us a new "reading" of the words and deeds of Jesus that depend on careful textual criticism arising from a bedrock of early cultural normatives in Palestine. Some of the distinctiveness, innovation and brilliance of Jesus' authenticity would be watered down using such a "modern," secularizing translation.

Albright

I agree Akido 7...

The issue of gender neutral translations often do mask the cultural norms that were practiced in the Near Eastern world in which the Bible was set. But unfortunately the theological agendas of everyone from conservatives ie NIV to Liberals often dictate that the text (translation) conform to their theology. This is a case of the theological
dog wagging the Biblical tail.

Albright

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Albright: The issue of gender neutral translations often do mask the cultural norms that were practiced in the Near Eastern world in which the Bible was set. But unfortunately the theological agendas of everyone from conservatives ie NIV to Liberals often dictate that the text (translation) conform to their theology. This is a case of the theological dog wagging the Biblical tail.

Akido & Albright,

Do either of you have specific examples of mistranslations that demonstrate your alleged conspiracy by liberals or conservatives?

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/" target="_blank">http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/</a>

contains numerous examples, with translations in comparison, of certaint verses translated differently to reflect the political and theological biases of the translators.

For example, this page has trinitarian-biased translations:
<a href="http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/trinity.htm" target="_blank">http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/trinity.htm</a>

There are many pages at the site. It is quite interesting.

One interesting point about the NIV this anit-NIV stalwart claims:
God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once. <a href="http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm" target="_blank"> Here(halfway down) </a>

Enjoy! There's much to discuss here.

Michael

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: contains numerous examples, with translations in comparison, of certaint verses translated differently to reflect the political and theological biases of the translators. There are many pages at the site. It is quite interesting. One interesting point about the NIV this anit-NIV stalwart claims: God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once.

Congratulations! You've been impressed by the work of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm surprised you'd promote the work of a cult. You did know that was their propaganda being promoted on the site, didn't you?

Vorkosigan

Congratulations! I knew you'd call it a "cult" without examining whether any of the things he is saying are correct.

Hey, I posted links to the NetBible once. Does that mean I'm promoting conservative Christianity?

BTW, if one sect translates a verse one way, and another sect translates it another, well, that pretty much demonstrates the points the two posters were making above.

Michael

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: Congratulations! I knew you'd call it a "cult" without examining whether any of the things he is saying are correct. Hey, I posted links to the NetBible once. Does that mean I'm promoting conservative Christianity? BTW, if one sect translates a verse one way, and another sect translates it another, well, that pretty much demonstrates the points the two posters were making above.

I'm not the one who made an assertion without any evidence. If you want to claim a passage has been corrupted by "trinitarian-bias", then please give us some evidence. The JW arguments are so lame, most first-semester Greek students can see how weak they are. So go ahead and pick the verse from a translation that you believe demonstrates the greatest level of trinitarian-bias, and then we can discuss it.