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.
Nope. I have found out that Scott is a very common family name.
I get real tired listening to people talk about the archaic English from 400 ago while they forget that ancient Greek is filled with assumptions filled by looking at context. It too has changed, and more than English.
***I understand that Zondervan is no longer owned and managed by Christians. I could be wrong about that, and I hope I am, but I heard that about 10 years ago it was sold to a consortium made of businessmen who were not necessarily Christian.***
You are partially correct. (I was employed by Zondervan as a "temp" about 14 years ago.)
Zondervan was purchased about 15 years or so ago by Harper-Collins publishers. Until that time it was a family owned business.
Harper-Collins, as you should know, is owned by Newscorp which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Lest that should bother you too much, our beloved FoxNews is also owned by Newscorp.
You are incorrect, however, in stating that Zondervan is not managed by Christians.
It most certainly is and I personally know the most senior manager. He is a devout conservative Christian. Most all employees are Christians. They hold regular chapels that all employes are encouraged to attend.
All business decisions regarding what books to publish and who to hire are at the sole discression of the Zondervan management team. Harper takes a complete "hands off" policy when it comes to those decisions.
However, these above facts have little if anything to do with the "TNIV*". That translation as well as the NIV is owned completely by the IBS (International Bible Society). While the IBS has a working relationship with Zondervan, there is other connection. Rupert Murdoch has no say whatsoever in what words go into the NIV or the TNIV*.
Now, I'm not saying that I agree with all that Zondervan is doing or that I find the TNIV the best translation. I'm just interested in accurate facts.
Well, gosh, after making the comment you just made to me, why are you upset that I responded?
Goodness Dan, I didnt start any argument with you at all, all I did was defend the useage of thee,thout, thine, and you go off on some statement that I have a pecularity that I need to have exorcised...and then you wonder why I defended myself by reminding you of your previous ANTI-KJV statements??
have a nice day, Dan.
Nope -- "on Dirt" (which translates better, at least according to the Hitchhiker's Guide)...
BTW, I do agree that it would be nice if English had distinct singular and plural 2p pronouns, as it once did. Every other language I know, or know about, does.
But English doesn't.
Dan
Thank you very much for the clarification. I have wondered about it. I didn't mean to pass along false information. Thank you for setting the record straight.
Actually, learning Hebrew, and Greek isn't a bad idea. It goes along with Latin for a truly Classical eduation, which this nation is, for the most part, lacking.
You are correct. The "TNIV*" is not "gender neutral" as the NRSV and other liberal feminist translations are.
The "gender accuracy" as the IBS and Zondervan call it does just as you say. ***In cases where a modern writer would not use a gender-specific term, a gender-neutral term is substituted. E.g. "my brothers" is now rendered "my brothers and sisters," that sort of thing.***
In fact, the KJV does the same thing in many passages:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/kjvinclusive.html
I have a full copy of the TNIV* and will reproduce any passage that is requested.
Again, this is not an attempt to defend the TNIV*. I'm just interested in accuracy of facts.
That was the claim but it wasn't true. Then, as now, a certain percentage of the congregation were cultural Catholics. They put in the time and went through the motions but were not particularly interested in theology or doctrine. Thus, week after week they simply failed to ever read the literal English translation of the words of the mass that were printed side-by-side with the Latin in the missal.
Others with more interest understood very well the bulk of the Latin used in the mass and in devotions. At least this was the case in this country. My mother and grandmother followed the Latin with interest and pleasure.
***I don't recall any serious academic work --
especially Christian that they've done.***
While most of what they do -or at least most of what we see in so called "Christian" bookstores is not what you or I would probably refer to as "serious academic work", they do have more serious academic works: http://tinylink.com/?J2xYEuJC0c
It might be true that they have less as a percentage now than they did years ago. I don't know one way or the other.
Do recall an Old Testament verse that speaks of the Eagle and often took to be reference to God. And in that verse
is clear reference to the Eagle in both the male and female
terms.My fuzzy brain cannot recall the precise reference.
PErhaps some scholar could assist.
Your welcome.
Your welcome.
If you can give me the passage, I can give you the TNIV* rendering.
Yes, it does, and you find it in the King James
I was laughing in agreement with you here! I read the KJV every day and don't find it difficult. Reading every day is probably the key here. Like anything else, practice and familiarity overcome most obstacles eventually.
I feel the reverent tone also helps me understand the text better. As for all the arguments about versions, surely the Holy Ghost will guide us to "rightly divide the Word" whatever the version. (I hope so , anyway!)
Was speaking of the "epistle dedicatory" to the AV where the translators basically said they did their best to present King James with a text suitible for a King. The nature of the thorn in my flesh is some brain damage done while in service.That and me not being paper trained(educated).My appolgies.
Anyone working with precise enough exegesis to care if the word is a singular or second person prounoun will be working from the Greek and Hebrew.
thee
thou
thy
thine
and that aint Greek, it's english
:)
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.