TNIV accuracy?
- Thread starter Javilo
- Start date
- Status
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Not just gender-neutral pronouns, but plural gender-neutral pronouns. That's bad grammar (antecedent disagreement) at the very least.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Making use of either the most recent knowledge and the most recent scholarship is no criterion for judging accuracy. Much of recent "knowledge" and recent "scholarship" attests to the mere humanity of Jesus Christ and the complete egalitarianism of human relationships, both of which are ugly lies.
As has been noted, the TNIV was largely undertaken to conform to modern standards of gender neutrality - hence many of its most problematic "translations" involve the "their" replacing "his", which in many cases causes one to confuse singular and plural, which can be very important.
Some of the replacements involve prophetic statements that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ - and the connection to Christ is obliterated by the replacement of the male singular pronoun used in that case. That is, the prophecy is uttered as though it could be fulfilled by anyone, male or female.
There are also ridiculous things like the phrase "if a man has two wives" being replaced by "if someone has two wives"... the TNIV folks were so determined to remove any semblance of male reference that they do utterly ridiculous things like this.
Many places where fathers are referred to in specific have been changed to "parent" - the idea of covenant headship of fathers in families and generations is lost. This has implications for the relation of Adam to us and hence to Christ's redemptive work as well.
Anyway, I won't go on - the TNIV is a TERRIBLE translation. Its novelty is NO reason to trust it. We've got to go deeper than assertions of "most accurate because it is newest" and actually look at how the original languages are represented (and look at the motivations of the translators!)
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Consider yourself corrected.
Do you have a wood burning fireplace? You might remove the covers from your TNIV and use the pages to help start fires. If your community has a paper recycling program, you might also consider this as an opportunity to 'go green'.
And anyone who suggested the TNIV to you should NOT be relied upon for guidance.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Professor Peter Jones on the egalitarian ideology of the TNIV: CBMW » The TNIV: Gender Accurate or Ideologically Egalitarian
Wayne Grudem's MP3 on the gender neutral controversy and the TNIV: https://www.cbmw.org/Conferences/Di...-Neutral-Bible-Controversy-Including-the-TNIV
An entire book for free download by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne Grudem on the gender neutral Bible: CBMW » Online Books
If you want a list of evangelical scholars and prominent personalities who "Claim that the TNIV Bible is Not Trustworthy": https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Christian-Leaders-Claim-TNIV-Bible-Not-Trustworthy
Included among the signatories were:
But, please take some of the rhetoric in this post for what it is. As BAD as the TNIV is (and I agree that it is REALLY bad), recognize that a number of formally orthodox folks support it and that the Lord continues to use it to bring persons to himself. I won't even touch it, but that is my hinkey conservativism coming out again.
Those supporting the TNIV include: Ronald Youngblood, Kenneth Barker, R.T. France, Gordon Fee, Karen Jobes, Walter Liefeld, Douglas Moo, Bruce Waltke, etc. Some of the big mega churches also promote it (e.g., Willow Creek and the Willow Creek association). However, I would think that the NLT is grabbing some of the mega church crowd market share.
Depending on what theory you have about what is the most reliable text of the NT, I would suggest that either the ESV or the NKJV are the most accurate translations. Those are the two, BTW, that I use.
Wayne Grudem's MP3 on the gender neutral controversy and the TNIV: https://www.cbmw.org/Conferences/Di...-Neutral-Bible-Controversy-Including-the-TNIV
An entire book for free download by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne Grudem on the gender neutral Bible: CBMW » Online Books
If you want a list of evangelical scholars and prominent personalities who "Claim that the TNIV Bible is Not Trustworthy": https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Christian-Leaders-Claim-TNIV-Bible-Not-Trustworthy
Included among the signatories were:
But, please take some of the rhetoric in this post for what it is. As BAD as the TNIV is (and I agree that it is REALLY bad), recognize that a number of formally orthodox folks support it and that the Lord continues to use it to bring persons to himself. I won't even touch it, but that is my hinkey conservativism coming out again.
Those supporting the TNIV include: Ronald Youngblood, Kenneth Barker, R.T. France, Gordon Fee, Karen Jobes, Walter Liefeld, Douglas Moo, Bruce Waltke, etc. Some of the big mega churches also promote it (e.g., Willow Creek and the Willow Creek association). However, I would think that the NLT is grabbing some of the mega church crowd market share.
Depending on what theory you have about what is the most reliable text of the NT, I would suggest that either the ESV or the NKJV are the most accurate translations. Those are the two, BTW, that I use.
Last edited:
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Hey no need to make fun.
We want to encourage people to ask questions and learn how to evaluate and make good decisions.
Making fun though it could give you and emotional boost for the moment is not helpful to the OP and will discourage others from getting answers to their questions and cause people to feel experienced or educated reformed people are mean.
Lets sacrifice some joy for a good testimony.
We have plenty to make fun of our more experienced posters with. Or fun somewhere else.
A Guilty sinner pointing to himself as well.
We want to encourage people to ask questions and learn how to evaluate and make good decisions.
Making fun though it could give you and emotional boost for the moment is not helpful to the OP and will discourage others from getting answers to their questions and cause people to feel experienced or educated reformed people are mean.
Lets sacrifice some joy for a good testimony.
We have plenty to make fun of our more experienced posters with. Or fun somewhere else.
A Guilty sinner pointing to himself as well.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I suspect at this point we might have different definitions of 'formally orthodox'.
I'll stick with my original my original comment for now, but perhaps it should be a bit broader in scope, "anyone who suggested the TNIV to you should NOT be relied upon for guidance."
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
What does TNIV stand for anyway? The Nearly Inspired Version?
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
yesTerday's New International Version.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
So... is it an NIV made worse?
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Basically, yes. It's actually supposed to be "Today's New International Version".
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks, Edward, for the snarky comment.
Unless you are a lot smarter and a lot holier than the rest of us mere mortals, I doubt that you will be able to dismiss the orthodoxy of Bruce Waltke or Doug Moo. Waltke may or may not be your personal cup of tea, but he has taught at Westminster and RTS, not known to hire people who are not orthodox. Doug Moo's commentary on Romans is probably ranked as THE best one in English by most of the seminary educted members of the PB. Again, I did NOT defend the TNIV. Instead, my links were to three sources HIGHLY critical of it. And, I included the list of 100 evangelical leaders who also opposed it. For that matter, I refuse to use the TNIV OR the NIV as a Bible. But, as is sometimes the case on the PB, we can "pile on" to anything the majority disagrees with, leaving the poor fellow who raised the honest question looking like the village idiot for even asking something so uncouth. in my opinion, there is no good reason to make people who ask questions feel like the person who loudly passes gas in the middle of a public gathering.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
There are several reasons to oppose the TNIV or to think that it makes the NIV worse . . .
1. If you are NOT an egalitarian in matters of gender . . .
2. If you are NOT a dynamic equivalent translation person . . .
or
3. If you are NOT a proponent of the critical text behind almost all modern translations
#1 is the major reason people give for opposing it (see the list of 100 I cited above). A consequence of neuterizing the pronouns has implications beyond the question of male and female, however. Because some of the OT prophetic references point toward Jesus Christ and because efforts to neuter the pronouns makes some of the soteriological texts in the New Testament less clear and obvious, some have argued that it is also suspect for softening Christology.
#2 is no more applicable to the TNIV than it is to the NIV. If you want a formal correspondence (aka "more literal") translation, you will look at the NAS, NKJV, HCSB, or ESV anyway. Still, if you have discovered the virtues of a more "literal" Bible, you might still think that the TNIV is "worse" for other reasons than translation theory.
#3 is also not a comparitive reason to say that the TNIV is "worse" than the NIV since both are based on the Nestle 27th/UBS Greek text. However, since laypeople might innocently think that more recent means "new and improved," I would say that this is an indirect argument against it as well for those of us who like seeing where the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript traditions differ from one another. So far, the only major translation that offers anything like a comprehensive set of marginal notes n this is the NKJV.
Hawaiian Puritan
Puritan Board Freshman
I would have the same problem with the TNIV that I do with the NRSV, which is that by de-gendering the Scriptures you change their meaning.
A typical mistranslation in the NRSV is the one that has Herod killing all the children in Bethlehem, not just the boys:
First, it's wrong; in the Greek it clearly says male children. Second, it's wrong theologically, since obviously nowhere in Scripture is there the possibility that Messiah would be a woman. Third, it makes Herod look even more stupid and cruel than he was, since there would be absolutely no reason to kill the girls.
The NRSV is full of such problems because it sought to be politically correct. I would suspect you run into the same problems with the TNIV.*
One thing I like about the ESV is that although it retains the proper genders in the translation, it drops a footnote when scholars believe that a term was meant in the original language to include both men and women, e.g., that when the term of address "brothers" is used in the New Testament, it was inclusive of men and women.
*Update: I checked the TNIV translation of Matthew 2:16, and I will give them credit they did not make the same mistake as the NRSV: "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."
A typical mistranslation in the NRSV is the one that has Herod killing all the children in Bethlehem, not just the boys:
First, it's wrong; in the Greek it clearly says male children. Second, it's wrong theologically, since obviously nowhere in Scripture is there the possibility that Messiah would be a woman. Third, it makes Herod look even more stupid and cruel than he was, since there would be absolutely no reason to kill the girls.
The NRSV is full of such problems because it sought to be politically correct. I would suspect you run into the same problems with the TNIV.*
One thing I like about the ESV is that although it retains the proper genders in the translation, it drops a footnote when scholars believe that a term was meant in the original language to include both men and women, e.g., that when the term of address "brothers" is used in the New Testament, it was inclusive of men and women.
*Update: I checked the TNIV translation of Matthew 2:16, and I will give them credit they did not make the same mistake as the NRSV: "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Since you are a moderator, and I'm new to the board, I'll accept your chastisement and guidance in this post as to what is snarky
To address your first point. Yes, I could well be a lot smarter that many of the folks on this board, if you are measuring intellectual ability. As far as level of holiness, I doubt I'd reach the midpoint. But the question is orthodoxy, not holiness.
As to your second point, I don't know their views on the subject, and would have to see their comments in context before I'd comment on either man's view of the subject. I certainly will question the orthodoxy of anyone who will accept political correctness and conforming to culture over the purity of scripture. And I would apply a lot of discernment to anything else such a person had to say.
Well, there was that recent controversy surrounding one of the Westminster faculty members, contributing to the splitting off of Redeemer seminary, so their batting average isn't quite 100 percent. And there are some good folks who have come out of DTS, so folks from there shouldn't be rejected out of hand, but they should receive an extra layer of examination.
So, with a DTS background and a role in the translation of the TNIV, I'd have to be on my guard.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
OK, fair enough. We do differ on the meaning of the term orthodoxy. I use it in terms of the traditional sense of conformity to the orthodox confessions of faith and beliefs of the church commonly accepted as "orthodox." In this sense, people who uphold a common core of fundamental truths would be deemed orthodox by me despite my real and even significant differences with them on secondary or tertiary issues.
I consider the signatories to the list I posted orthodox Christians despite my differences with some of them. For example, my own theology would be closer to Doug Moo or Bruce Waltke (despite their work on the TNIV) than it would be to some of the people on the list opposing it (e.g., Paige Patterson, Jack Cottrell, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, etc.).
BTW, I doubt that the evangelical scholars behind the TNIV would agree with your characterization that they "accept political correctness and conforming to culture over the purity of scripture." Some of them honestly believe that to translate anthropos as a male rather than as "mankind" is an impure translation. I happen to agree with Grudem, however, that in their haste to erase unwarranted gender bias, they have cast out the baby with the bathwater and done damage (albeit unintentionally) to the translation of the Word of God.
I consider the signatories to the list I posted orthodox Christians despite my differences with some of them. For example, my own theology would be closer to Doug Moo or Bruce Waltke (despite their work on the TNIV) than it would be to some of the people on the list opposing it (e.g., Paige Patterson, Jack Cottrell, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, etc.).
BTW, I doubt that the evangelical scholars behind the TNIV would agree with your characterization that they "accept political correctness and conforming to culture over the purity of scripture." Some of them honestly believe that to translate anthropos as a male rather than as "mankind" is an impure translation. I happen to agree with Grudem, however, that in their haste to erase unwarranted gender bias, they have cast out the baby with the bathwater and done damage (albeit unintentionally) to the translation of the Word of God.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Edward, don't worry about Dennis - he graduated from Fuller 
(sorry, Dennis, I just had to).
Joe,
I just picked up the new ESV Study Bible yesterday for my wife, and it is outstanding. If you want to see top notch scholarship being applied to study notes both regarding modern insights from biblical studies departments, as well as from the biblical/systematic theology departments, look no further. Look at the list of contributors, and you will see the best of conservative (and yet, cutting edge) evangelical and reformed scholarship in the line up. The introductory notes are very well done, but even more so are the many essays included on topics such as Christian ethics, interpreting the Scriptures in light of Christ and the gospel, and much else of benefit to the Christian mind and life.
Go for the ESV Study Bible. I guarantee that it will remain on your night stand much, much longer than would the TNIV.
(sorry, Dennis, I just had to).Joe,
I just picked up the new ESV Study Bible yesterday for my wife, and it is outstanding. If you want to see top notch scholarship being applied to study notes both regarding modern insights from biblical studies departments, as well as from the biblical/systematic theology departments, look no further. Look at the list of contributors, and you will see the best of conservative (and yet, cutting edge) evangelical and reformed scholarship in the line up. The introductory notes are very well done, but even more so are the many essays included on topics such as Christian ethics, interpreting the Scriptures in light of Christ and the gospel, and much else of benefit to the Christian mind and life.
Go for the ESV Study Bible. I guarantee that it will remain on your night stand much, much longer than would the TNIV.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Edward, don't worry about Dennis - he graduated from Fuller
Go for the ESV Study Bible. I guarantee that it will remain on your night stand
much, much longer than would the TNIV.
OK, Adam, touche! But, for your information, I was NOT trying to defend all of the profs at Fuller as orthodox (I don't think that they are!), merely that some of the translators of the TNIV are orthodox. They are, in my opinion, WRONG on lots of things, including the TNIV. But, among those criticizing the TNIV in my list above, lots of them were/are wrong on lots of things in my opinion. Cottrell is a Campbellite. Paige Patterson has his beefs with Calvinism, etc. Unless we want to defend "orthodox" unhistorically as "me, myself, and mine and no more," we should get over denying the term "Christian" to people who disagree with us on some point of doctrine.
As to your point about the ESV Study Bible, AMEN! It is the BEST study Bible available in the English language (in my opinion).
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
The forthcoming revision to the HCSB may be a contender for the best of recent scholarship. I still think its current version's rendering of John 3:16 is the most accurate:
For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
No, I got your point (smiley and all). I was just trying to distance myself from FTS and neutralize that part of your point.
My having graduated from FTS probably does make me a bit broader in my definitions of orthodoxy than some on the PB. Remember that I'm a pretty cranky and dissatisfied grad on the right end of the Fuller spectrum. However, I generally accept the types of evangelicals on the list of 100 opposing the TNIV as relatively orthodox although TNIV translators such as Walke and Moo are demonstrably MORE conservative than many of the names on the anti-TNIV list.
That is the curious part for me, Adam. I am a Grudem/Piper man (CBMW) when it comes to the dangers of egalitarianism and share with them a preference for a formal correspondence translation. I cannnot imagine thinking of them as not in the circle of "Christians" or the "orthodox." However, some of the translators of the TNIV are more "Reformed" than Grudem or Piper in eschatology or cessationism.
FTS does breed a willingness to extend a judgment of charity towards the orthodoxy of people with whom we disagree. At times it even leaves grads so open minded that their brains leak out!
Honestly, do you personally doubt the authenticity of Walke's or Moo's faith? Or does graduating from Westminster come with a diploma and a cool set of x-ray specs that identify the sheep and the goats in the conservative Protestant Christian camp?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I really like the HCSB. It is essentially literal without being wooden. However, from a marketing standpoint, do you see it having much of a chance?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Patterson and Falwell don't (didn't) claim to be reformed - indeed, they are quite open in their hostility to the Reformed distinctives (although I've long admired the work that Patterson and Pressler did in turning the SBC from liberalism). So I'm not that worried about them leading reformed sheep away.
Bright's another issue. As a Presbyterian (PCUSA), I know that he did speak from at least one PCA pulpit. I don't recall having had any significant issues with that message when I heard it. Perhaps I need to listen to it again. I'm not sure that his personal theology belongs in the same category with Patterson and Falwell.
In any event, the threat is the camel sticking its nose under the fence, not the one in the next pasture. Patterson and Pope Benedict are less of a threat to the Faith than are those who claim to hold similar beliefs, but who would undermine the foundations.
You know, I think the proper scale for us to compare ourselves would be a Charitable - Discernment scale. I hope I don't offend you too much when I say that I do believe from this exchange that you are far more charitable than I, perhaps even to a fault, while I would score much higher on discernment, likely to a fault. (There's a reason that I am not, and never should be, on the benevolence committee, for example.)
- Status
