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.
Zondervan --isn't that published lingo for swampy wasteland? I don't recall any serious academic work --
especially Christian that they've done.
In what way is it a poor translation?
I had thought that Zondervan had scruples and was not in this business solely for money. Apparently they are in it for more than just that.
As for me, not one more cent will be spent on their "goods."
So have you read the letter published in the original
KJV? --but will admit your claim does hold water in a
relative sense.
It surely would. And it makes a world of difference to me. They're not getting another dime from me.
I think I have read the letter. You're talking about the Preface in which the translation of the KJV was requested, right? Can you rephrase the rest of your question? I didn't get my morning swim today and the cobwebs weren't washed out. I didn't understand what you were asking.
I'll respond later. I need to take my daughter to school.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
Don't get me wrong: the AV is a reasonably servicable translation except for the fatal flaw that it is utterly incomprehensible to the modern mind that didn't grow up on it. You and I grew up in backgrounds that used it. (I grew up in a very traditional background where the KJV was the translation used by the majority; as a NASB user, I was part of a distinct minority.) It makes sense to us, but there are still archaic words that we have to retranslate to ourselves. "Meet." "Suffer." "Verily." These words mean little to the modern mind.
My "epiphany" occurred when I realized that sermons based on the KJV spent more than half the time updating what the KJV meant. I ditched the KJV for the NASB, and found it much easier to follow. More importantly, it was easier for others to follow.
my choice for simple study is the Companion Bible.The
Amplified is ok--I guess. But that translation one will
study is the one best for that individual. Even the most accurate translation is not worth much if never read and applied.
#4...Excellent!
lol, very true!
funny isn't it how in American Education in New England
and the colonies Latin,Hebrew, and Greek were taught
and expected for entrance into the colleges or universities.These languages we neglect were fundamental in
early American education. Lest the child be decieved by the
"old Deluder"Now look at New England.They would lead us all from the foundation--having too long neglected whence
we came and why.
An excellent point that I don't often see: However accurate the KJV is, as a translation from Hebrew or Greek to Jacobean English, it often does not accurately convey the meaning to a reader of modern English. And that doesn't mean the modern reader is a dope ... it's simply that meanings have changed, both over time and through geography. English words mean often have different meanings for Americans, British, Australians, and Indians.
I saw an example in an article today. A clearly educated writer took the Shakespearean usage of "brave," as in "brave new world," to mean "courageous." That's the default current meaning, but Shakespeare meant "excellent" or "outstanding."
That's your opinion...
..Many of us grew up reading, learning and memorizing the King James Version....which is beautifully poetic...
..I now own and read the NIV....
...and agree with SBC and ...Presbyterian Church, PCA..(of which I'm a member) that this Today's NIV..is out of line...very out of line.
I think you're actually referring to Matthew 5:18...
As a famous Italian once observed , to "translate is to betray." In a sense no translation can ever perfectly capture what is said. But I don't think that is what Matthew is referring to.
As Dr. Gregory Vall has shown, inclusive translations such as that of the NRSV actually obscure the pro-feminine dimension of passages like Galkatians 3:23-4:7. "For if inclusive language fails to convey the dignity of women even when that is the author's point, how will it succeed elsewhere?" ("Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men iN Christ," The Thomist 67 (2003)).
For this reason and others inclusive language glosses are highly problematic. I applaud LifeWay and the SBC for taking a stand against it.
I have always had a problem with the NIV. I was reading it and the King James(cross-referencing) the story of Philip and the Eunuch. In the NIV text, they left out a whole verse, the one about the Eunuch being baptized. I checked other NIV editions and found that these editions also left out the verse...so it was not just my bible. In Revelations we are instructed not to add to or take away from the good book.
The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. Read this first, to understand the issues about why there might be a "missing" verse.
Do agree-both gender were used in some verses of God--but it
seems all of His Creation is gender specific- i.e living matter is either male or female--or not living matter.
I reviewed the New Revised Standard Version, which led the way into the morass of "gender free" rewriting, HERE. The same criticisms would apply. But then, I am not a great fan of the NIV either, as my remarks HERE explain.
But what really gripes about this translation is that it is a treacherous breach of commitment.
Imagine that. A stealth Bible, released with the secrecy of a really bad movie, in direct violation of promises the sponsors had made NOT to perpetrate such a thing. In our spiritually brain-dead, Athenian culture, I don't doubt it will sell.
But it will smell, too.
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
Check to see if she went to Union Seminary in NY. When my daughter spent a college spring break working in the NY homeless shelters they stayed on the Union Seminary campus. They attended some services there and instead of saying amen, they said awoman. Very gay/lesbian friendly campus.
You have such a way with words, Dan! Even when I disagree with you (which I don't, here) I love the way you put things.
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.