C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Though we know what you think about the NIV, tell us, what you think about the TNIV - has anyone heard about this at all, or read anything on it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by bond-servant
Isn't the NRSV gender neutral also? Does anyone know if it is as bad as the TNIV?
Originally posted by webmaster
Though we know what you think about the NIV, tell us, what you think about the TNIV - has anyone heard about this at all, or read anything on it?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is an evangelical concern, beyond the bounds of the Reformed.
It is not gender neutral as far as I am aware. I believe it is simply an update of the Revised Standard Version
I am both encouraged by how many have come out in protest and discouraged by how many are still in darkness over this issue.
- The TNIV uses gender-accurate language only where the meaning of the original text was intended to include both men and women.
Q: Is the TNIV gender neutral?
A: The TNIV is not gender neutral; it is in fact “gender accurate.” Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. The TNIV does not remove these attributes or “neuter” any passages of Scripture. The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a more precise rendering of Greek and Hebrew words.
Half of all major Bible translations use some gender-accurate language, especially translations like the NLT (Tyndale) and the NCV (Nelson). But even translations like the the NKJV and the Holman Christian Standard Bible use gender-accurate language.
But then shall we update the Bible in order to make it conform to modern expectations and demands? Updating it makes it easier, but does so by simply giving in to a modern prejudice. Meanings and thought patterns in the Bible are compromised. The plenary inspiration of Scripture disappears in practice, because details of meaning are altered—always under the claim of eliminating offense and misunderstanding. But faithfulness to original meaning requires letting the Bible's innately offensive elements stand. Whether these are minor or major, the principle remains the same. If we give in at this point, further down the road we will give up calling God Father, because this too is perceived by some as offensive. In fact, it is far more offensive than a generic he! If we give in here, we should get ready to pray to "Our Parent in heaven …" because the new Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon, with no new evidence, has already added the new definition Parent for Greek pater when referring to God (p. 787).
Originally posted by Saiph
Their quote:
- The TNIV uses gender-accurate language only where the meaning of the original text was intended to include both men and women.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Wonder how they treat 1 Cor 11, Titus 2, etc?
Originally posted by JasonGoodwin
I am not surprised to see endorsements of this horrible "version" (if it should deserve such a respectable term) of Scripture. Considering that men like Ted Haggard (I regrettably attended his New Life church in 1990), Jim Cymbala, Lee Strobel, and Peter Furler gave it thumbs up (and the reputations which precede these men), it should not catch anyone off guard. However, I was blindsided to see that Roger Nicole gave it his seal of approval. Does anyone have any comments on this?
Thanks in advance.