# TNIV - New NIV Translation



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2005)

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?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2005)

Endorsements are here:

http://www.tniv.info/endorsements/index.php

Its not looking good....(as if)

It seems to be a gender inclusive bible, which takes out things like "man" and replaces them with "human being."

Its REALLY not looking good.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

http://no-tniv.com/


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2005)

Check this out:

PRESS RELEASE
Issued Monday, July 1, 2002 by
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood


PCA Passes Resolution Against the TNIV 

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their General Assembly, held June 18-21 in Birmingham, Alabama, passed a resolution rejecting Today’s International Version (TNIV) of the Bible.

Citing that the TNIV changes gender-specific terms into non gender-specific terms and that the TNIV "responds to other potential controversies by altering the original text, changing for instance 'Jews' to 'Jewish Leaders' (Jn. 19:24; Acts 13:50)," the delegates at the meeting: 

Expressed "disapproval" of the practice of making gender-related and other alterations to the authorially-intended meaning of Scripture in Bible translations;"

Cautioned, "its congregations and members, as well as the larger Christian community, against the use of the TNIV;"

Implored, "IBS to discontinue publication of the TNIV and to refrain from further gender-neutral and other 'corrective' efforts in Bible translations." 

Randy Stinson, executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood commented, "Here we have an entire denomination, known for its scholarship and commitment to the Bible, issuing a resounding statement of rejection of the TNIV."

"We are continuing to see the wave of momentum getting bigger as denominations, organizations, and literally thousands of individuals express their lack of trust in the TNIV. Many of us who are adamantly opposed to this translation are still hopeful that, in response to the overwhelming evangelical opposition, IBS and Zondervan will reconsider their decision to publish the TNIV."

See also:

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1401454,00.html

PCA GA


PCA General Assembly Expresses Disapproval of TNIV


By Dominic Aquila


PCANews - BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – The 30th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America voted on Thursday, June 20 to express its disapproval of Today’s New International Version (TNIV), which has been the center of controversy over questions of gender specific language. The PCA resolution expressed “disapproval of the practice of making gender-related or other alterations to the authorially-intended meaning of Scripture in Bible translations.” 
The TNIV is a joint Bible translation venture of the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House. 

The issue came before the General Assembly through Overture 33 from Central Carolina Presbytery (“Erect Study Committee Regarding ‘Today’s New International Version of the Bible’”) and a personal resolution offered by TE Richard D. Phillips of Philadelphia, Penn. 

The Bills and Overtures Committee recommended that the GA answer the personal resolution in the affirmative as amended and that Overture 33, a request for a study committee, be answered by reference to the Assembly’s response to the personal resolution. 

The General Assembly approved the following resolution: 

WHEREAS, the PCA affirms the full authority and plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures (Mt. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21); and 

WHEREAS, the proper task of Bible translators is to accurately reproduce the original text as given by the inspired authors into contemporary language; and 

WHEREAS, the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) exerts a strong influence on Evangelical Christians in the United Stated, being trusted and used by many pastors and lay people in the PCA; and 

WHEREAS, the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing House have begun to publish a new translation of the Bible known as the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) which will likely benefit from the prestige and influence of the NIV, and may exercise a similar influence on Christians; and 

WHEREAS, the TNIV purports to achieve increased gender accuracy, in some cases by making prudent translation decisions, but in other cases deliberately altering gender-specific details which appear in the original languages; and 

WHEREAS, the TNIV performs these alterations by changing gender-specific terms into non-gender-specific terms (ex. changing “father” to “parent” and “son”/”sons” to “child”/”children”, see Heb.12: 7; “man” or “mortals” to “human beings”, see Heb. 2:6; and “him” or “he” to “them” or “they”, see Rev. 3:20, the latter changing not merely a gender-specific term to a non-gender-specific term but also changing an individual pronoun into a collective pronoun); and 

WHEREAS, the TNIV responds to other potential controversies by altering the original text, changing, for instance, “Jews” to “Jewish leaders” (John 19:12; Acts 13:50); and 

WHEREAS, the accurate translation of the text of Scripture is a matter of such vital importance to the Church so that the PCA is obliged to join voices with other denominations in this matter, especially when a translation is likely to exert great influence on Christians and egregiously violates acceptable standards of Bible translation. 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, 

1. That the PCA expresses disapproval of the practice of making gender-related or other alterations to the authorially-intended meaning of Scripture in Bible translations. 

2. That the PCA cautions its congregations and members, as well as the larger Christian community, against use of the TNIV; 

3. That the PCA implores the IBS to refrain from further gender-neutral or other “corrective” efforts in Bible translations.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 2, 2005)

It is a breaking of Zondervan's word and a blatant attempt to avoid the implications of Scripture by "improving on" what the Holy Spirit said.

Tim and David Bayly, PCA pastors and good friends, along with PCA pastor Andrew Dionne, have been at the forfront of this fight. But it has wide support - Paige Patterson and Al Mohler are upset, as is Wayne Grudem and a host of others. This is an _evangelical_ concern, beyond the bounds of the Reformed.

Go here for more information:

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/cat_bible_translation.html

http://www.shepherdchurch.com/ktf/index.html


----------



## bond-servant (Feb 2, 2005)

Isn't the NRSV gender neutral also? Does anyone know if it is as bad as the TNIV?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Isn't the NRSV gender neutral also? Does anyone know if it is as bad as the TNIV?



It is not gender neutral as far as I am aware. I believe it is simply an update of the Revised Standard Version


----------



## bond-servant (Feb 2, 2005)

I haven't actually looked at it, (nor do I want to  : but here is an example of what I've heard below:
-----
What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?

by Wayne Grudem, 1997


The publicity brochure of the New Revised Standard Version sounds so sensible. At last, we are told, misleading, masculine-oriented language has been removed from the Bible. Jesus no longer says, "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (RSV), but instead, "And I...will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32, NRSV). 

This is an improvement: the word men isn't specified by the Greek text, and all people is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas. Changes like this use "gender-neutral" language without sacrificing accuracy in translation. In addition, the NRSV has not gone as far as some people wanted, because it still calls God "Father" (not "Parent"), for example, and calls Jesus the "Son of God" (not "Child of God")--probably in large measure due to the conservative influence of the chairman of the NRSV translation committee, evangelical New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger.

But there are many other changes -- literally, thousands -- that should cause evangelicals much concern. The translators consistently disregarded precise, grammatically correct English equivalents and resorted to gender-neutral paraphrases. The preface explains that the copyright holder (the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ) required that "masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture." To fulfil this requirement, the translation committee explains that it had to depart from its ordinary principles of making "essentially a literal translation."

For example, the preface says that they used "periphrastic renderings" to compensate for "the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun" in English--in other words, they used paraphrase to eliminate "he," "him," and "his" where they were used in generic statements to refer to either a man or a woman. It is significant that the NRSV translators do not claim that such gender-neutral translations are more accurate, or even could be carried out within their guiding maxim, "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." Rather, they admit that they had to resort to paraphrase to make the translation gender-neutral. In addition to generic he-him-his, other "masculine-oriented" words such as "father," "son," "son of man," "man," and "brother" were removed from several hundred verses.

The NRSV in 1989 was the first major "gender neutral" translation, but many of its patterns have been followed by the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (ncv), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and (in England only) the New International Version-Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). I have based this analysis on the NRSV as the foundational gender-neutral Bible, but I compare it at several points to the NLT, ncv, CEV, and the NIVI. On the other hand, the current NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and the old RSV are not gender-neutral translations and they are not evaluated here.
<snip> more at http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.php


----------



## matthew11v25 (Feb 2, 2005)

> _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?



very irresponsible of Zondervan to say the least...I signed the petition against it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is an _evangelical_ concern, beyond the bounds of the Reformed.



Indeed - on the link I gave above, even Chuck Colson, Bill McCartney, James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, Pat Robertson, Dennis Rainey, David Jeremiah, Bruce Wilkinson, Adrian Rogers, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell and a host of (surprising) others signed the petition against it.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2005)

Since I am a student at SBTS – an institution that has been on the front lines against the TNIV – I, along with every SBTS student, received a copy of the TNIV New Testament about 2 years ago. (Dr. Mohler permitted Zondervan to distribute this to our student body so that we could read it for ourselves.)
Having read the entire TNIV New Testament I can say that the arguments put forward by Zondervan ring kind of hollow.
For those of you who aren’t aware, one of Zondervan’s biggest arguments was/is that the update was needed in order to keep up with changes in the vernacular of the American public. They even published a video in which they portrayed themselves in the same vein as Tyndale and Wycliffe. They went so far in that video as to portray those opposed to the TNIV as being against the Bible in the language of the people!
That being said, they admittedly kept about 90% of the text of the TNIV the exact same as it is in the NIV! To be fair, they did make some changes to some other passages besides gender inclusivity language, but by far the most consistent changes were those involving gender inclusive language. Granted, the English language doesn’t usually say “men” when we refer to people in general. But they are so consistent in their application of gender neutral language that they change it even in passages such as in James 3:1. The reading of the TNIV gives no possibility that James is here addressing men only. Yet everything else in the NT written regarding who should teach… and even knowing the culture of the day!… all mitigate against this being a gender inclusive address. 
So, while I don’t want to get into a debate between formal and dynamic equivalence in regards to translation theory, I do think that at best the TNIV is naïve and careless in the application of its dynamic equivalence translation principle to the point that it is a misleading and doctrinally unsound translation. At worst, we have here a translation that has made a concerted effort to capitulate to the evangelical feminists.

By the way, even though I am no fan of dynamic equivalence I do think that the NLT is a much more responsible - and therefore better – translation than the TNIV.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Pete Richert (Feb 8, 2005)

```
It is not gender neutral as far as I am aware. I believe it is simply an update of the Revised Standard Version
```

The NRSV is indeed gender neutral (gender accurate as they like to say :bigsmile That is the main reason it is so reviled.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 8, 2005)

I am both encouraged by how many have come out in protest and discouraged by how many are still in darkness over this issue.

It is quite telling when you look over the endorsements. There are a great many female pastors in that list. It is a travesty. In trying to make the Bible relevant, they forget that there is only One who makes the Word clear, and they certainly didn't invite Him along on this version.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Feb 8, 2005)

> I am both encouraged by how many have come out in protest and discouraged by how many are still in darkness over this issue.



I am in the dark here. Enlighten me please.
What is the issue with saying "mankind" instead of "man" for general terms like anthropos ? ??

Their quote:




> - The TNIV uses gender-accurate language only where the meaning of the original text was intended to include both men and women.



And . . . 




> 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.



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Feb 8, 2005)

ok. I see Poythress's point here:




> 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).




However I will say that when it comes to the Psalms, most translations are absolutely terrible. I find the NIV to be more poetic, and lucid. Sometimes NKJV, NASB, and ESV are too literal to make any sense. (ie. 65:5)

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 8, 2005)

*Mark....*

I see you answered your own question.

I am just not comfortable with changing a masculine verb into a unisex one just to sell Bibles in the hopes of making clear what only the Holy Spirit can. If God wanted us to interpret verbs so that they are unisex, I think He would have planned the language for that.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

Zondervan is owned by Harper now. The Roman Church owns Harper I was told. God figure. Can anyone back up what I have heard.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Their quote:
> 
> ...



This is untrue. They are saying "only when the meaning... was intended to include both men and women" when what they mean is "only when WE THINK that the original meaning included both men and women."
As in the example I gave above, their judgment does not always seem plausible.
Also, after having read the TNIV, it is astounding how consistently they made the change to one of gender neutrality.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 8, 2005)

Wonder how they treat 1 Cor 11, Titus 2, etc?


----------



## matthew11v25 (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Wonder how they treat 1 Cor 11, Titus 2, etc?



Not as bad as other places. Click HERE for 900 inaccuracies in the TNIV.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by matthew11v25]


----------



## Authorised (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm glad the PCA declared their dissatisfaction with this obviously questionable translation. If words can be construed to mean "children" though it literally means "sons" I see no real problem in meaning; however, translators need to be accurate when gender-specific words are neccessary or pertinent to the understanding of the passage. It makes no sense to translate is gender-neutral when the context clearly refers to males, such as governing bodies. 

Seriously though, the attacks against this particular translation/version should have also been lodged against the translators of the NIV, other dubious translations, and paraphrases. As James White said, this is mostly politics. 

Too little too late. The translation business makes too much money off those who are insecure with the translation they already have.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 15, 2006)

TNIV Bible gets a nod from the Synod 

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

By Charles Honey
Press Religion Editor 
Grand Rapids Press

GRAND RAPIDS -- It's official: The controversial TNIV Bible is OK to use in the Christian Reformed Church. 

The CRC Synod on Tuesday gave its congregations the green light to worship with Today's New International Version. Some already use the new Zondervan translation. 

But that was only after several delegates blasted the TNIV's gender-inclusive language as a politically correct version of Holy Writ. 

"We ought not to cave culturally and theologically to this version," said the Rev. George Cooper of Crystal Lake, Ill. "It's a political translation." 

Bible-quoting ministers charged its gender-inclusive language twists scripture. 

"It's not acceptable to have a translation that obscures our Lord Jesus Christ," said the Rev. James den Dulk of Trinity CRC in Sparta. 

They echoed critics such as Dr. James Dobson who criticized the TNIV when it was first published in 2002. 

But others called it a more accurate version that reflects modern language nuances. 

"You may not like it, but we live in a culture where the word 'man' is no longer heard in a generic fashion," said Jeffrey Weima, a Calvin Theological Seminary professor of New Testament. 

He called the TNIV "an acceptable translation" that changes only about 7 percent of the popular NIV. 

The Rev. George Vander Weit, pastor of Fuller Avenue CRC, passionately defended the Rev. John Stek, chairman of the translation committee and a member of his congregation. He called Stek "a man of integrity who loves the biblical text and would not play games with it for anybody."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 15, 2006)

> _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.



Roger Nicole has been pro-feminst for some time now. Go to Tim and David Bayly's blog for some citations:

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/021690.html

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/014916.html


----------



## py3ak (Jun 15, 2006)

Nicole's article about women in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology is sheer capitulation --quite some years ago.


----------

