# Zondervan on the offensive over TNIV Bible



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

From Christian Retailing:
http://www.christianretailing.com/article.php?sid=312



> 'Aggressive' marketing campaign planned for controversial 'gender' translation
> By Andy Butcher
> 
> Zondervan intends to take the offensive for the forthcoming full release of its controversial new Bible translation, the Today´s New International Version (TNIV).
> ...




For more information on the ill-effects of the TNIV see:
Kept The Faith

and particularly the following denominational actions:
http://www.shepherdchurch.com/ktf/denom_resolutions.htm


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't think it's much of a threat, since an enormous portion of leading Christian authors and speakers from nearly all theological camps have rejected it, from Reformed authors to men like Bruce Wilkinson, James Dobson and Chuck Swindoll. See http://www.no-tniv.com.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

You discount the power of marketing!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 23, 2004)

Well maybe it will do well in gay bars or san francisco.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 23, 2004)

> The TNIV was particularly intended to engage 18- to 34-year-olds who were largely disconnected from the church, Caminiti said. The work of a team of leading Bible scholars, it was the latest addition to a genre of "œgender-accurate" translations including the NLT, New Century Version and Good News Bible.


Changing the Bible to engage 18 to 34 year olds? Wow!


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 23, 2004)

What about boycotting Zondervan in general? Is that a valid option? Or would it hurt too many faithful Christians who are published by them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

See Grudem (negative) contra Mark Strauss (affirmative) debate on the acceptability of TNIV

I thought about boycotting Zondervan but they are so big and their arm reaches so far. You can write an email calling them girly men but I doubt that it will do much good.


----------



## sastark (Dec 23, 2004)

"girly people", Jacob, "girly people" is what the TNIV would call them.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 23, 2004)

At the end of the day, its all about money. Why so many versions? Because of a desire for relevancy and accuracy? I think not.

JH


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 23, 2004)

You got that right Jonathan.

I like the idea of a boycott also. What else does Zondervan have its cold clammy fingers into? 

I always thought the NIV was lame too.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 23, 2004)

How about a book burning?


----------



## Ivan (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> What about boycotting Zondervan in general? Is that a valid option? Or would it hurt too many faithful Christians who are published by them?



I do. I'll stick to my ESV.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 23, 2004)

Are they owned by Disney too?

I got an advance copy of part of the NIV Study Bible quite a few years ago. It was put out by Zondervan too. It was the gospel of John. I was going through it, and the notations at the bottom on John 8:31,32 caught my eye. That ended my excursion into that.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 23, 2004)

I'm dyin' of suspense here JohnV.... What'd it say?


----------



## JohnV (Dec 24, 2004)

Christopher:

It was so long ago that I can't quote it word for word anymore. At the time I was just learning some philosophy and logic stuff, and the note made complete nonsense out of the absolute basics of what I was learning. I mean, if there is a division in truth, any division at all, then we cannot know, and that is absolute. I was big on the unity of truth axiom, and still am. That's why I can't subscribe to a lot of things going around in our present intellectual atmosphere. 

I'll look it up, if I can still find it. While I'm at it I also want to find that article by David Suzuki in Reader's Digest, and post that too. But I'm going to have go into the dusty Vandervliet archives for these, it was a long time ago. But maybe someone has one of the Study Bibles handy, and can look up the notes, at the bottom of the page. Anyways, I'll see if I can find it back.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 24, 2004)

Found it!

note to John 8:32:

_the truth_. Closely connected with Jesus (v. 36; 14:6), it is not philosophical truth but the truth that leads to salvation. _free_. Freedom form sin, not from ignorance (see v. 36)

For your convenience I quote both texts:

vs. 36:
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 24, 2004)

Classic evangelical anti-intellectualism.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 24, 2004)

The old regular NIV disgusts me with its wresting and denial of so many parts of God's Word. 

The TNIV just makes me want to


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 24, 2004)

Andrew,
Do you really think the NIV is that bad? Its what I use in my "Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible."

Several years ago, I started to memorize the Book of Romans; I used the NIV. Then when I heard that perhaps there were some problems with it, I didn't want to change because I had already begun my memorization with it. 

Now I have the Bible on CD, read by Max McLean. It also is NIV, and I listen to it all the time.

Do you think the problems are serious enough for me to entertain jumping off ship? Thanks...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Andrew,
> Do you really think the NIV is that bad? Its what I use in my "Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible."
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm afraid I think the NIV is that bad. Here are a few reasons:

* I believe that Christians must use a Bible that follows the Byzantine Text; to go the other route (a la most 20th century translations like the NIV) is to use a book that makes heretical manuscripts from the Vatican and elsewhere the "best" underlying source for a passage in question, according to the NIV notes. Their renderings and omissions (notably John 8 and Mark 16 and many, many others) are worth careful study because it is apparent the translators did not handle God's Word with care and their presuppositions are not consistent with God's providential preservation of the text.

See: The Trinitarian Bible Society has articles on this issue and the NIV in particular: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

* The dynamic equivalence theory of translation which the NIV relies upon is a plain wresting of God's Word. It purports not to translate words but ideas and the words in fact get lost in the process. In contrast, translation by literal and faithful Bible versions over the years aims to treat each word of God with care and translate the exact word in the best sense, and thereby is better able to remain faithful to the actual meaning. 

See: http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html

* The NIV was done by some who ought not even to be called Christians, including sodomites. In contrast, faithful translations ought to be prepared by faithful men of God. The faithfulness of the translators has a direct bearing on the faithfulness of the translation. Not to mention the publishers. 

See: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

* The NIV lacks the elegance of older more faithful translations. The KJV version of the Lord's Prayer is ideal for memorization; the NIV version is not. The KJV translators used an elevated style not a lowest common denominator style like the NIV (well, the Living Bible is one of the worst offenders in this regard). For memorization purposes, there is none better than KJV. 

* To clarify, I am not a KJV-only person. Any faithful translation based on the Byzantine/Majority Text/Textus Receptus is on solid ground. I use the Geneva Bible (1599) and refer to the NKJV and the MKJV on occasion. The KJV in fact does have the occasional error, but it's the best for use in the church even in this century in my view. 

These are some of my reasons. Much more could be said! But I hope this helps.

[Edited on 24-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]

[Edited on 25-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 25, 2004)

I'll agree that the NIV is a terrible translation. It is not even faithful to its own document stream. 

Andrew, I'm curious. Do you know the original languages? The reason I ask is that some of the assumptions made about the Byzantine / TR stream being so pristine, especially those statements made within the KJVO camp of which thankfully you are not a part, are not based upon sound knowledge of critical examination of texts. The differences between the TR and the Alexandrian are not major at all. In some instances the Alexandrian texts appear to have a more accurate rendering.

Good job on the Geveva! I'm in the market for another. My old one is wearing out badly and is a quatro. That makes it a bit unwieldy to use. What binding do you have?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 25, 2004)

on the NIV, dynamic equivalence, etc. 

I'm another one who favors the Byzantine side, but not slavishly. I do so for the same reasons as Fred (and others). My position is first and foremost a _theological_ one. It is inconceivable to me that God would relegate the best overall preservation of his Word--the property and responsibility of the church--to the cupboards, dustbins, and fringe elements of the church. This presupposition is unquestionably supported strongly by the very Scriptural data that substantiates the Reformed doctrine of written revelation--its provision, right use, and preservation. To my mind, it is most and emminently reasonable to consider some form of the "ecclesiastical text" as the default position, to which comparisons and evaluations of other data (be that Alexandrine, Western/Latin, Syriac, etc.) must be brought. 

This is precisely the position that has been utterly reversed and confounded by the "lights" of the historical-critical school, which coterie has exercised a stranglehold on textual "scholarship" in the last 150 years. With a few made-up rationalistic "rules" to govern them (which are as maleable as the human minds that invented them) these men simply assigned priority upon the oldest (therefore "best") manuscripts they could find, and went revising from there. Without a shred of proof (other than the "remarkable consistency of the witness," which begs the "why?" question), the Byzantine corpus was set aside as "obvoiusly" the product of a 4th or 6th century official revision and standardization, and relegated to suspect status. Dabney was exploding their "logic" as early as 1881, with the publication of the RV (British), the first major AV revision to use the higher critical method extensively (see Discussions, vol. 1, pp391ff).

Ecclecticism is little better (i.e., not much), because while it purports to make NO prior judgments about any reading whatsoever, it assumes the myth of neutrality in matters theological. This is a dangerous and foolish assumption to make. First, it should be obvious that to ascend (or descend!) to a plane of serene unconcern about "theological detail," as if it were possible to handle "holy things" with irreverent detatchment, and not sin thereby; and then to enter into "neutral questions" regarding authenticity and accuracy--and with an uneaqual yoke at that--is nothing less than a devil's bargain. Why ought believing scholars accept the rationalistic "rules of the game" (to which all literary questions--sacred or secular--are brought), agreed upon by all the parties/practitioners? This is assuming common ground with unbelief, when such common ground is NOT shared, is NOT a borrowing by _unbelievers_ of ground owned by Christians.

Second, it is the safest of all stances to discover first of all which prejudices are yours, which are your axioms, your presuppositions, and especially acknowledge your theological biases, and then (so far from attempting a foolish suppression or expurgigation) to approach the matter of scholarship with full awarenes and disclosure of your *inescapable* stance, whatever that may be. Anything less is self-delusional, or worse, downright deceitful--and we have had plenty of both in the last two centuries.

I am quite willing to listen to arguments for individual variant readings that come out of the various strands of textual and ecclesiastic tradition. God may well have preserved his Word better here and there, and these connections serve to tie the whole Christian community together, and limit our inherent pridefulness. But that is not the same thing as saying there cannot be a "core" of reliability and authenticity. What more reasonable and natural place to look for it than in the place where most of the Greek New Testament was originally written and propagated for so long in an environment where ordinary conversation used that very language?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 25, 2004)

I'm with Bruce and Andrew (or if you do a search and see older posts by me, they're with me  ). Providential preservation, as well as proper textual analysis (i.e. we don't treat manuscripts of Homer and Cicero like we do the critical versions of Bible - because pagans don't have an agenda with Homer & Cicero) make me a Byzantine guy. I've been doing Greek since '87.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> I'll agree that the NIV is a terrible translation. It is not even faithful to its own document stream.
> 
> Andrew, I'm curious. Do you know the original languages? The reason I ask is that some of the assumptions made about the Byzantine / TR stream being so pristine, especially those statements made within the KJVO camp of which thankfully you are not a part, are not based upon sound knowledge of critical examination of texts. The differences between the TR and the Alexandrian are not major at all. In some instances the Alexandrian texts appear to have a more accurate rendering.
> ...



I acknowledge readily that I am not a Greek scholar. I came to my views on the Byzantine Text by this route:

1. There are numerous English translations out there that one has to choose from today. A choice has to be made if one wishes to memorize the Scriptures.

2. I do know French so I can compare English with French and discern some textual issues in that capacity. 

3. I started my Christian walk with the NIV. It reads in paragraph form and doesn't sound archaic, so that appealed to me at first. 

4. I became aware of higher textual criticism and the unbelieving assumptions which underlie this approach to God's Word. This approach relies heavily on two texts which were found in the 19th century, one of which is named in honor of the Vatican where it was found. Big red flags all over the place! Westcott and Hort were not sound in their theology either. 

5. The doctrine of the providential preservation of God's Word suggests that the church cannot have lacked the true rendering of God's Word for 1800 years. 

6. To look to the Alexandrian texts as more reliable simply because they were older merely begs the question. 

7. A careful analysis of the differences and discrepancies between the Alexandrian and Majority Texts shows a pattern of de-emphasizing the divinity of Christ on the Alexandrian side. For example, the gospel of Mark ends with the disciples being afraid and there being no resurrection. That's pretty significant! The story of the woman taken in adultery is also cut out. That's major. 

8. The NIV, building on its faith in the Alexandrian texts, demonstrates numerous other instances of textual revisions that weaken statements about Christ's divinity in the Alexandrian texts include: 1 Tim. 3.16; Rom. 14.10b; Luke 2.33; Col. 1.14; and Rom. 1.16. Individually, they may not seem like much, but taken together the pattern is significant. And God's warnings in Rev. 22 about taking away or adding to his Word ought to strike fear into the hearts of the NIV translators. Many verses are omitted altogether. In Mark 1.2, the NIV incorrectly attributes the words of the prophet Malachai to the prophet Isaiah. That's bad scholarship. 

9. The NIV notes inspire doubt in the veracity of God's Word.

10. The whole dynamic equivalence approach to translation means that I can't really trust that a sentence in the NIV isn't conveying a modern concept rather than the actual Word of God as it was written in Greek. In contrast, the KJV translators were honest enough to put in italics words that they added to make the Greek phrase sound intelligible in English. 

Bottom line: I don't trust the NIV. As a layman, I have to trust that God's Word is readable and understandable. If it is not, we're all in trouble. I can trust Textus Receptus Bibles, but not those based on unbelieving manuscripts and approaches to textual criticism. 

My Geneva Bible is a facsimile reprint by the L.L. Brown Publishing Company. At one time I sold Geneva Bibles on commission for that company. They espouse some strange views about other issues, however, so I am no longer associated. 

I have purchased an antiquarian edition of the Geneva Bible which I gave someone as a present and for a brief time it felt good to hold it in my hands. I have also once owned a 17th century French Bible which included the Psalter and it's wonderful thing to know that godly men of old once held a book like that in their hands. It's a reminder of the common faith delivered unto the saints and the bonds that we have in Christ with the saints of the Visible Church in all ages. 

God's Word is very precious and must be handled with care. The NIV fails at this crucial point, and I am thankful for the faithful translations that we have which can indeed be relied upon to answer the simple question: Is this the Word of God?


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 25, 2004)

Andrew, 
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do not have time at present to give you a point by point answer. Trust me, I have no reliance upon the NIV. But, textual criticism is not the reason it is such a shoddy bit of work. Translation is. I'll try to post more later on, probably not today.

I'd been looking at the L.L. Brown. How is the binding?

Nollaig Chridheil Huidh!
Lawrence

[Edited on 25-12-2004 by LawrenceU]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Andrew,
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do not have time at present to give you a point by point answer. Trust me, I have no reliance upon the NIV. But, textual criticism is not the reason it is such a shoddy bit of work. Translation is. I'll try to post more later on, probably not today.
> 
> ...



The binding on my Geneva Bible is quite good. I've had it for 10 years and used it often but it still looks brand new. 

Cheers!


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 25, 2004)

Maybe I'm just simple but William (?) Grady's vitriolic book about this subject (I forget the name) was enough to solidify my distrust of most modern versions.

And the serpent said... Has God indeed said...?


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 29, 2004)

I never liked the NIV.... dynamic equivalence or thought for thought instead of word for word precision inevitably compromises the Word.

The best recent translation is the ESV or NKJV.


----------



## Authorised (Dec 30, 2004)

The NIV dynamic equivalence works better in the OT than in the NT, however it has no outstanding qualities. 

The NAS is probably the only modern translation worthy to keep around, considering it is consisent in the translation of Greek verbs.

I think a good case can be made for the position that the KJV is to date the best translation which can be used by anyone who speaks English; the texts used by modern "scholarship"
(USB 4th edition, NA 27) are inferior to the ones available to the translators of the KJV. 

For a good misrepresentation of this position, however, I suggest one read The King James Only Controversy by James White, a book which labels all who prefer the KJV as either following Ruckman/Riplinger, or merely uninformed. 


The TNIV however, is total garbage.


----------



## Authorised (Dec 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Maybe I'm just simple but William (?) Grady's vitriolic book about this subject (I forget the name) was enough to solidify my distrust of most modern versions.
> 
> And the serpent said... Has God indeed said...?





William Grady's book, Final Authority is actually available in audio online...I'll see if I can find it. It is very strong in language, but this book is far more informed than James White's book, regardless of the position taken.

As to vitriol...

It's only vitriol if it disagrees with your position...I suppose many today would be too sensitive to hold a debate with Luther. 

...Does the word "suck" mean anything more or less than "stink?" Does it matter? Does spelling a word with one letter missing (as some do on this board) change the meaning which will be understood by all? Is it less offensive? 

Really?


----------



## king of fools (Dec 30, 2004)

The first Bible that I bought when I becuase a Christian was the NIV study Bible. I spent several years reading/studying/memorizing that, and while I'm not going to say that it did me a disservice, I will say that I wish I had been reading the NKJV or another Bible from the start. 

I remember spending time with patrick (Puritansailor) memorizing Romans 8, and the differences between the NIV and NKJV are not to be missed.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:

"As to vitriol...

It's only vitriol if it disagrees with your position...I suppose many today would be too sensitive to hold a debate with Luther."

Don't get me wrong Aaron I kind of like vitriol (bitterly scathing; caustic), perhaps too much -it definitely makes things interesting. 

I can't stand the girlie man, milquetoast ethic that tries hard not to offend anyone above all other considerations.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2004)

I read from multiple sources that Zondervan is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who publishes soft p0rn in his _Sun_ newspaper in the UK. If that is true...


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 30, 2004)

I'll stick too my NASB (which was published by Zondervon!!! ).

I've heard that Zondervon also publishes the Satanic Bible. 

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## Authorised (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't think any current publishing company is headed by a Christian individual. Most secular businesses found out that publishing Christian books is good money. Murdoch, in addition to Zondervan, also owns Eerdmans, the National Enquirer and of course many other famous newspapers. In 1982 Murdoch, in order to raised circulation, published soft-core p0rnography which featured topless girls.




[Edited on 30-12-2004 by Authorised]


----------

