Posted on 01/28/2005 3:15:12 AM PST by paudio
The Rolling Stone Magazine reversed its decision not to air an advertisement for the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible earlier this week, but the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)-affiliated Lifeway Christian Resources has not yet changed its decision to keep the edition out of its 122 bookstores because of the version’s gender-neutral translations.
The controversy over the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing House’s TNIV began in 2002 when initial publishing began. Fundamentals and evangelicals rejected the version’s rendering of male terms like “son” and “father” into the gender neutral “child” and “parent”, respectively.
By the year’s end, two of the nation’s largest evangelical denominations, the SBC and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), passed resolutions establishing that the TNIV has “gone beyond acceptable translation standards.”
“Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the TNIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards,” a part of the SBC’s 2002 Resolution 4 read. “This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language.”
Resolution 4 expressed “profound disappointment” with the IBS and Zondervan, and further resolved that “Lifeway not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores.”
Lifeway’s spokesman Rob Phillips said Lifeway has not had the chance to review the full Bible yet, but does not have plans to stock it.
The TNIV is set to be released next week.
If I'd ever found a way to reason someone out of a peculiarity, I'd engage you on the KJV. It's your peculiarity. No point going further.
Dan
Thanks for your post. I appreciate your time and effort in writing it.
yours is the Anti-KJV
Further, advocating it alone is a stupid position, indefensible, embarrassing, and distracting from the 149 real issues a Christian should devote himself to.
Dan
Some people might find it easier to learn 50-100 archaic words than Greek or Hebrew. I know of a language expert that has found hundreds of errors in the Greek text of many ancient translations when compared to the bits and pieces of ancient, though not "original," texts.
In Col.2:14 it reads "...having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." Paul wrote this while inspired by the Holy Spirit.
All that is true, including, as you mention, that "Paul wrote this." That is not the same as Jesus' having said it. Nowhere does Saint Paul suggest that every word he wrote should be treated as a quotation from Christ.
I don't mean to be nit-picky - although I guess I am - but you've taken a poetic figure from St. Paul and put it into Jesus' mouth as a quote. That seems just as loosie-goosie with the text as taking out all the "he's" and "him's."
Why do either when there are perfectly servicable newer translations out there like the NASB, ESV, or NET, which all have "essentially literal" translation philosophies?
Bear in mind: what version of the Old Testament did the Apostles read? Most of them probably couldn't read much, if any, Hebrew. Most Jews at the time of Christ used the Septuigent or an Aramaic translation of the OT. The NT cites the Septuigent. Now, we know that the Septuigent was a little fast and free in certain areas (especially the psalms and the prophets), yet the Apostles used it anyway.
My apologies, a prior quote was still in my clipboard. Mea culpa.
It's very annoying when the OT quotations used in the NT aren't the same as what we've memorized from our OT translation, based on Hebrew instead of Greek sources! But it's just one of those things we have to live with.
Here's an example:
The RSV was unfairly maligned for its rendering of Isa. 7:14, using the word "young woman" rather than "virgin." Shrill cries that the RSV translators were undermining the doctrine of the virgin birth. No one thought about the fact that in Mat. 1:23 the word "virgin" was used. No one investigated why the RSV translators did what they did.
In Hebrew, in Isa. 7:14, the word used is almah, a phrase that could be quite legitimately translated as a young woman, irrespective of her virginity. The focus of the term is her age, not her sexual experience, or lack thereof. Observe the context of the verse in Isa. 7:14 - it's about how Assyria and Samaria, who were confronting Judah, would fall within the lifetime of Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. He was the initial fulfillment of that prophecy in an all-too-usual non-virgin birth. The "young woman" conceived.
The secondary fulfillment, the one implied in the name Immanuel, is the one that the Septuigent and Matthew caught on - the word the LXX, and thus Matthew, uses to translate almah from the Hebrew to the Greek is parqenoV (parthenos), a word that can only mean "virgin." (The LXX was translated around 200-150 BC.)
The RSV is the only major translation to reflect this nuance; and they were sorely castigated for it. The only modern translation that reflects it that I am aware of is the NET Bible, but it has copious notes to explain its every translation decision.
***Jesus called God, "Father," and used the pronoun, "He." So should we.***
As does the TNIV*:
Matthew 5:44,45
"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
The TNIV quotes Jesus as calling God "Father" and using the pronoun "He".
***Our "Parent" who art in heaven"?.........yeah right.***
from the TNIV*:
Matthew 6:9-13:
This, then is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debgts,
as we also have fogiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation.
but deliver us from the evil one.'
No use of the word "Parent".
Okay, thanks! I haven't seen the details on the TNIV - I based my comments on my personal least-favorite "inclusive language" atrocity.
Well, I believe all scripture is God breathed or inspired by God. And yes Jesus did not specifically state that he nailed them to the cross, but in the other passages I wrote to you he means that is what will take place once he fulfills the prophecies and the law. The Law given to Moses and the Jews excluded all other nations, however God made a promise to Abraham that all nations (Jews and Gentiles) would be blessed. This promise was fulfilled through Abraham's seed, and that Seed is Jesus. Because of sin the Law of Moses was added until Christ the seed should come. Then he would give us a more perfect law to follow. The bible says in Rom. 7:4 that we become dead to the law through the body of Jesus Christ because the law was nailed to the cross and the new testament or will takes it's place. The principles of the commandments are in the NT but they were perfected. So yes you are right, Jesus did not say he came to nail the old law to the cross, but the promise has been fulfilled. Paul as a writer for the bible received inspiration from God as to what to write. Thus Jesus came to nail the old law to the cross.
***The problem here is that Zondervan intentionally changed text and is, therefore, even less accurate with the translation.***
Correction. Zondervan is only the publisher. They did not do anything except to print the text they were given by IBS.
IBS (International Bible Society) is responsible for the changes. If anyone is to blame for changing the text, it is IBS -not Zondervan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.