# TNIV accuracy?



## Javilo (Apr 10, 2009)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the
most accurate because it is the most recent translation and thus makes
use of the most recent knowledge and scholarship.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 10, 2009)

Not necessarily. As I understand the TNIV has come under heavy criticism for its replacement of male pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns instead.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 10, 2009)

Not just gender-neutral pronouns, but plural gender-neutral pronouns. That's bad grammar (antecedent disagreement) at the very least.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 10, 2009)

Javilo,

If you are purchasing a new translation, you might consider the ESV and do some occasional comparison with the KJV and Strong's concordance.

While no translation is (or could be) absolutely perfect, these are highly reliable and time-tested.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 10, 2009)

Javilo said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the
> most accurate because it is the most recent translation and thus makes
> use of the most recent knowledge and scholarship.



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

Javilo said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the
> most accurate because it is the most recent translation and thus makes
> use of the most recent knowledge and scholarship.



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.


----------



## E Nomine (Apr 10, 2009)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the most accurate reflection of contemporary western society's declining morals and thus makes use of the most recent concessions to academic relatvisim and political correctness.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 10, 2009)

Javilo said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the
> most accurate because it is the most recent translation and thus makes
> use of the most recent knowledge and scholarship.



 

Thanks! I needed that!


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 10, 2009)

E Nomine said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that the TNIV is the most accurate reflection of contemporary western society's declining morals and thus makes use of the most recent concessions to academic relatvisim and political correctness.


 

That is a good one!


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 10, 2009)

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: 



> Daniel L. Akin, Dean, School of Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
> Gregg R. Allison, Professor, Western Seminary, Portland, OR
> Kerby Andersen, President, Probe Ministries, Richardson, TX
> Neil T. Anderson, Founder and President Emeritus, Freedom in Christ Ministries
> ...



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.


----------



## DonP (Apr 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## E Nomine (Apr 10, 2009)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.


----------



## Edward (Apr 10, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> ... recognize that a number of formally orthodox folks support it



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

What does TNIV stand for anyway? The Nearly Inspired Version?


----------



## Skyler (Apr 10, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> What does TNIV stand for anyway? The Nearly Inspired Version?



yesTerday's New International Version.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 10, 2009)

So... is it an NIV made worse?


----------



## TimV (Apr 10, 2009)

> 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.



And be sure to remember that neither of those versions is totally faithful to any of the main texts, and in addition the difference between those texts is so minor that not one Christian doctrine is changed by preferring either.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 10, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> So... is it an NIV made worse?



Basically, yes. It's actually supposed to be "Today's New International Version".


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 10, 2009)

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > ... recognize that a number of formally orthodox folks support it
> ...



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> So... is it an NIV made worse?



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

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:



> When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. (Matthew 2:16 (NRSV))



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Thanks, Edward, for the snarky comment.



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 



> 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.



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.



> t he has taught at Westminster and RTS, not known to hire people who are not orthodox.


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 (Apr 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 10, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Edward, don't worry about Dennis - he graduated from Fuller  (sorry, Dennis, I just had to).
> 
> 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).


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2009)

I wasn't saying that you were trying to defend Fuller's profs, I was saying that your definition of orthodoxy was influenced by having graduated from the institution, but maybe the intended emphasis flagged by the laughing smiley was lost.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 10, 2009)

Archlute said:


> I wasn't saying that you were trying to defend Fuller's profs, I was saying that your definition of orthodoxy was influenced by having graduated from the institution, but maybe the intended emphasis flagged by the laughing smiley was lost.



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> 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.



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 (Apr 10, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> 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.).



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. 



> 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.



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.)


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2009)

Dennis, I don't believe that I said anything about anyone's orthodoxy myself, but snide comments like that about WSC certainly won't win you any friendships from our graduates (and I'm fairly certain that WSC grads are not bending over backwards to win the approval of Fuller grads, either). 

That is, unless you forgot to include said smiley...


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 11, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Dennis, I don't believe that I said anything about anyone's orthodoxy myself, but snide comments like that about WSC certainly won't win you any friendships from our graduates (and I'm fairly certain that WSC grads are not bending over backwards to win the approval of Fuller grads, either).
> 
> That is, unless you forgot to include said smiley...



My, Adam. Even when people go out of their way to AGREE with you, you bite. 

* My original point was to stand up for the fellow who started the thread by his simply asking a question. Sometimes we pile on in our zeal to dump on things not generally agreed to here.

* My secondary point was to oppose so narrow of a definition of orthodoxy that people listed as editors of the Reformation Study Bible get thrown under the bus because of their association with a particular dynamic equivalent translation, the TNIV. 

The primary definition of "orthodox" has to do with the eastern wing of the church. The secondary definition denotes adherance to the first (3 or 7 depending on who you are talking to) ecumenical creeds of the church. Only the tertiary definition allows us to differentiate ourselves from other fellow evangelicals in matters of secondary disagreements over eschatological positions and the like.

Use of the term in conservative American Protestantism tends toward the second use. That is why the list of TNIV opponents I posted includes orthodox inerrantist evangelicals who are Calvinist, Arminian, Dispensational, and even Campellite! What they all agree to (despite their major disagreements on all sorts of important issues) is the opposition to the egalitarian gender inclusiveness of the TNIV.

But, if we are planning on judging everyone involved in the translation of the TNIV (including those who are not particularly egalitarian, but merely convinced on linguistic/translational grounds of the accuracy of rendering "anthropos" as humanity or mankind) as non-orthodox (Edward's charge that gave rise to this tangent of discussion), then we will be condemning people who are counted as orthodox by just about everyone, including Westminster Seminary and RTS and who were major editors of the Reformation Study Bible!

At some point, such constrictive definitions say nothing because they reduce to little more than solipsism. That is part of the reason why we cannot have a simple discussion of the EP on the PB. Partisans on both sides seem incapable of resisting the temptation to label, libel, and lambast one another until the moderators intervene to staunch the flow of blood. Hurling fighting terms like "unorthodox" at those who are in essential agreement with you strikes me as nutty and counterproductive. One need not be a "liberal" Fuller grad to consider such behavior sectarian.

BTW, as an inerrantist who has significant doubts about the superiority of the Alexandrian manuscript tradition, I am so far from the TNIV as to be mainly a New King James Reformation Study Bible user (although the ESV Study Bible would be my second favorite). But, maybe I'm just one of those "typical fundy" Fuller grads!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 11, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...


Yes, the marketing of the HCSB is a mess. Need to distance themselves from being perceived as just a So. Baptist translation, which I think is happening...slowly, via word of mouth, viral marketing, etc.

The new revision coming out and the campaign around it may change things.

Some relevant links:
A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations [Edwin Blum] | Faith & Reason | THIS LAMP...and that's all I need

Interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor for the HCSB Anwoth

WORDsearchBible.com: Hebrew and Greek Interlinear and HCSB Reverse Interlinear Bundle


----------



## jeffm05 (Apr 11, 2009)

Hawaiian Puritan said:


> 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.



The irony of the ESV is that although one of it's purposes was to be a translation not awash with gender-inclusive language, it actually _introduces_ gender-inclusive language hundreds of times.

For example, see this document from a supporter of gender-inclusive language. It points out a number of instances where the ESV revises the original RSV text in a gender-neutral direction.

http://bible-translation.110mb.com/list/files/gender-inclusive-esv.doc


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 11, 2009)

jeffm05 said:


> Hawaiian Puritan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Jeff, that is actually an argument in favor of the ESV and its scholarship. That they would deviate from a mistranslation of the original to make gender inclusive what was originally gender inclusive in the Greek, even against their professed intention to work against egalitarianism generally, speaks volumes about the honesty and integrity of the translators.

The ESV was not so much an anti-gender inclusive Bible as it was an update of the RSV, correcting the RSV's penchant for conjextual emmendations in the OT, AND a Bible faithfully translating the original and NOT forcing everything into a gender-inclusive straightjacket of political correctness.

Frankly, I think that they succeeded pretty admirably on both scores. The HCSB is still (in my opinion) an easier read (e.g., use of contractions in the direct discourse in the Gospels rather than stiltifying everything). However, acceptance in the Reformed community makes the ESV a better choice for pulpit use and church selection at this time.

Interestingly, the SBC's Al Mohler (_Time_ magazine's anointed "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement," opines that there are only three English translations worthy of serious study:
1. NAS
2. ESV
3. HCSB
He basis this on his (and my) preference for a formal correspondence translation free of liberalizing political correctness and speculative conjextual readings (e.g., if you don't like what the OT text says, just substitute another word you think makes "better sense" like the RSV does repeatedly!).

For me, the irony is that the New King James is quite readable (easier for me than the ESV) and the only one that tells you where all the major textual variants are in the NT text. Their marginal notes identify with a NU those variants that exist in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition/United Bible Societies 4th edition and with a M those that follow the majority of the Byzantine readings. And, it is not merely a de-thee and thou-ifying of the KJV. Last night in a communion service I followed the NKJV version of the Lord's Prayer and was surprised to find that "deliver us from evil" was more correctly rendered as "deliver us from the evil one."

Still, if I were on a church committee selecting an "official" translation for our entire congregation (about 450 avg. attendance from 28 ethnic groups), it would be the ESV at this point. However, even if you use an ESV, the ESV Study Bible is SO large and heavy as to be a practical impediment to use as a "carry it to church" Bible. 

Like Goldilocks, the ESV Study Bible is too hot (big), the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible is too cold (NIV - yech!), but the Reformation Study Bible is just riiiiiight! [I will, however, let my wife carry the ESV version of it and I will go to church with my NKJV version of it. ]


----------



## Archlute (Apr 13, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Dennis, I don't believe that I said anything about anyone's orthodoxy myself, but snide comments like that about WSC certainly won't win you any friendships from our graduates (and I'm fairly certain that WSC grads are not bending over backwards to win the approval of Fuller grads, either).
> ...



See the guy in my avatar? I learned how to smile from him.


----------



## Igor (Apr 15, 2009)

I may be wrong, but after I learned about the TNIV, I was ready to give up my favorite NIV (which I had been reading for years as the only English thanslation) as well: I perceived it to be sort of "defiled" or "unclean" now - the reason being that some of its translators participated in doing this "revision". Still use it, but... have some bad feelings.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 15, 2009)

I suspect that it had more to do with marketing decisions than academic ones. Zondervan is owned by News Corp after all. Does that mean we should rename it the RMB (Rupert Murdoch Bible?)


----------



## Igor (Apr 16, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> I suspect that it had more to do with marketing decisions than academic ones. Zondervan is owned by News Corp after all. Does that mean we should rename it the RMB (Rupert Murdoch Bible?)


But is there any way to find out how the old NIV is linked to the TNIV? I mean, how many translators of the NIV team got involved in this project? Did any of them participated in the NIV: Inclusive language Edition (to me this is real apostasy)?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 16, 2009)

The NIV translators worked from 1965 to 1983. Over the years a number of the original translators dropped off to be replaced by an expanded group who were also involved in the TNIV. Those who worked on both editions included John Stek, Ken Barker, Larry Walker, Bruce Waltke, Herbert Wolf, and Ron Youngblood. Here is a list of TNIV translators:
*
Dr. Ronald Youngblood* became an NIV translator in 1970 and a member of the CBT 10 years later. 

*Dr. Kenneth Barker* is an author and speaker living in Lewisville, Texas. Until his retirement from IBS in 1996, he was Executive Director of IBS' NIV Translation Center. He is one of the original translators of the NIV and a regular spokesperson for the CBT. He holds a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. 

*Professor John H. Stek* is a retired Professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he continues to teach part-time. He holds a BD degree from Calvin Theological Seminary and a ThM from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

*Dr. Donald H. Madvig* is a retired minister and Professor of Biblical Studies at Bethel Theological Seminary. He holds a PhD from Brandeis University. 

*Dr. Richard T. France* worked in the 1970s as a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Ife in Nigeria. From 1981 to 1988 he taught at London Bible College in New Testament studies and from 1989 to 1995 he was Principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford University. 

*Dr. Gordon Fee* is Professor of New Testament at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He received a PhD in New Testament studies from the University of California. He has taught at Wheaton College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. 

*Dr. Karen H. Jobes* is associate professor of New Testament at Westmont College in Santa Barbara. She holds a PhD in Biblical Hermeneutics from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). 

*Dr. Walter Liefeld* is serving this year as Interim President of Tyndale Theological Seminary in the Netherlands, and is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. 

*Dr. Douglas Moo* is Blanchard Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, and has been on the CBT since 1997. 
*
Dr. Bruce K. Waltke* is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, Florida Campus). 

*Dr. Larry L. Walker* holds a PhD from Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. He has taught Hebrew and other ancient languages (such as Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic) at the seminary level for 30 years. Dr. Walker also served on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy that drafted the now-famous "Chicago Statement on Inerrancy." 

*Dr. Herbert M. Wolf* (deceased), Ph.D. 
Former Associate Professor of Theological Studies, Wheaton College 
*Dr. Martin Selman* (deceased), B.A., M.Div., Ph.D. 
Former Deputy Principal, Spurgeon’s College (London)


----------



## Igor (Apr 16, 2009)

*DMcFadden*, thanks a lot. But who did the notorious Inclusive Language Edition? Was it a completely separate project or somebody from the NIV team was also involved?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 16, 2009)

Don't know.


----------



## ClayPot (Apr 16, 2009)

*TNIV Translators*

See Committee on Bible Translation CBT Members of the TNIV Bible

Dr. Ronald Youngblood
Dr. Kenneth Barker 
Professor John H. Stek
Dr. Donald H. Madvig 
Dr. Richard T. France 
Dr. Gordon Fee 
Dr. Karen H. Jobes
Dr. Walter Liefeld
Dr. Douglas Moo
Dr. Bruce K. Waltke
Dr. Larry L. Walker
Dr. Herbert M. Wolf
Dr. Martin Selman

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 02:07:21 EST-----

Sorry Igor. I read too fast. That wasn't helpful. I did several google searches, but couldn't find much on the NIVI.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 16, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> What does TNIV stand for anyway? The Nearly Inspired Version?



Truly Non-Inspired Version (though I guess that's true of any translation).


----------

