Posted on 01/28/2002 6:08:09 AM PST by FourtySeven
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The International Bible Society said Monday that America's best-selling modern Bible is about to get an update using gender-neutral wording, despite past criticism of that idea from conservative Christians.
The revision will be called "Today's New International Version," or TNIV. The original "New International Version," which has sold more than 150 million copies worldwide since 1978, will remain on the market.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The gender used for a given pronoun should only be neuter if that pronoun is neuter in the original text. If the original Greek uses a masculine pronoun in a particular spot, then the English translation should also use a masculine pronoun. If the original Aramaic uses a Feminine pronoun in another spot, then the English translation should also use a feminine pronoun. Accuracy in translation, despite whatever traditions may have arisen about a particular part of the text, is one thing, but PC pandering is quite another.
From www.zondervan.com
CHANGE:The TNIV incorporates textual changes that reflect a better understanding of the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew. The majority of the changes are made to better clarify passages or update colloquial English without altering the meaning. With 7 percent change from the NIV, the TNIV matches the NIV word-for-word most of the time. Updates include:
Word changes that more precisely render the meaning of the original text and thus improve accuracy. For example, “Christ” is changed to “Messiah” when the underlying Greek functions as a title.
A better understanding of the meaning of certain terms in the original Greek and Hebrew. References to “the Jews” are described more specifically, such as “the Jews there” or “the Jewish leaders,” when the context indicates a more precise group of people.
Everyday language to improve understanding without changing meaning. For example, Mary is said to be “pregnant” rather than the archaic “with child,” thus reflecting language more commonly used today.
Changes in paragraph structure, sentence structure, word order, punctuation, spelling and capitalization as well as minor word changes based on contemporary English style. For example, the TNIV omits the vocative “O” as it has fallen out of everyday use.
Generic language where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. For example, “sons of God” becomes “children of God,” and “brothers” becomes “brothers and sisters” when it is clear the original text never intended any specific gender reference.
The TNIV is not merely a gender-accurate edition of the NIV. More than 70 percent of the changes made were not related to gender.
The TNIV retains male terminology, as present in the original text, for all references to God without exception. All gender-related changes in the TNIV are made to update masculine terminology that, in view of the immediate context, is often misunderstood and clearly used with generic intent. The changes do not have any doctrinal impact upon the text of Scripture.
The TNIV sometimes uses a generic plural pronoun in the place of a masculine singular pronoun, making it more consistent with contemporary English practice.
There is also a link to the TNIV New Testemant Text
Jean
Exactly. The Gender issue is a smoke screen.
Your ignorance is breathtaking. Are you unaware that "hades" and "sheol" are the actual words chosen by the Holy Spirit? Hades and gehenna are not the same, as the KJV would have us believe. To translate hades as hell is simply incorrect.
Some of this is just plain silly. A 'mage' is a wise man, at least that is the meaning when used as "magi" through the centuries. A mage was a member of some sort of Zoroastrian priestly order, so maybe they were magicians. And how is a person's soul in jeopardy over the meaning of mage? And it is worth footnoting that some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain all of the resurrection story. No one is saying it didn't happen, and Mark's is only one of four gospels, so there is no scarcity of accounts of the resurrection. It is worth noting that that part of the narrative may have been written by someone other than Mark. the fact that your KJV does not mention this does not make it not so.
I use lots of translations and study notes. I don't care for some of the decisions made by the NIV translators, but I have no doubt they are not members of some vast satanic conspiracy to undermine the divinity of Christ. There is way too much material in the NIV which contradicts this wacky notion.
And just because something is "left out" that was in the KJV does not mean the NIV erred. Maybe the KJV did. It is well known that some passages that were in the Latin Vulgate version made their way into Erasmus' version, and the KJV with no ancient textual evidence for them.
I will wait and see more examples of the new version before dismissing it as a tool of Satan (but I know already I won't like it).
For pity's sake, folks, do not buy this version. Let the $2M rot out their bottom lines...
Written by Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center
It is true that in the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960s and early 1970s), Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At the time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views . Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the sixties what became public knowlege only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.
Do you have details to contradict this, or are you just repeating slander?
Dr. S
God hates all sin. In Leviticus 18, God lists 12 ways that we are not to commit family sexual sins (incest). When God gets to verse 22 (one verse), He says lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination. Where does God say, "And now the WORST of these sins is homosexuality?"
Homosexual sex is an abomination but so is all sexual immorality. When you advance your own agenda against a specific sin, you appear to be excusing other sins.
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.