Today's NIV

Just curious if any of you have yet familiarized yourself with the TNIV and have any comments on it. I haven't explored much, but I'm currently teaching a class on "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth" by Fee and Stuart, and those authors seem to really LOVE the TNIV, and aren't the biggest fans of the ESV, which is my current preferred version.

Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear any comments from a Reformed perspective, if you've had a chance to see how this translation stacks up against the old NIV and the other translations out there. It is available online at: http://www.tniv.info/bible/index.php and, if you're in the US or Canada, you can get a free hardcopy at http://www.tniv.info/form/index.php.

Gamecock said:

That would make me very suspicious of the writers of the book you are using, IMHO....

Click to expand...

Yes, well, I was quite surprised at their translation preferences, because the book (How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth) is in other ways an excellent one. They do a very good job, IMO, of explaining the issues involved in understanding a biblical text. So I'd hate to give a negative impression of them based on their preference for the TNIV... Seriously, though, it was their positive comments on the translation that made me want to take a look at it. I've requested a free copy, and I'm looking forward to reviewing it more closely.

Behe's Boy said:

I haven't looked it at - and don't intend to based on all of the controversey that seems to be surrounding it. Apparently the translation is very gender nuetral which has quite a few folks irrate.

Personally - I just don't see the need for another translation - especially of the NIV variety. It can't get much easier to understand than the NIV - and I am very suspicous of the TNIV for that reason alone.

Thanks for bringing it up - I was wondering how long it was going to take before it was...

Click to expand...

Well, I was just curious -- I hadn't even heard of the TNIV until this book came along.

As for the gender-neutral thing, I've been reading up on that. It seems the major way they differ from other translations is in using "they" and "them" as singular pronouns. This is an attempt to capture the idea that there is greater inclusivity in the biblical terms than show up when it's rendered in English. That's a tough one, because no English translation is going to get across the nuances of the original language. So should we use colloquial grammar to get that across? I don't know.

The problem seems to be that we are forced to err on one side or the other. Take the NT word for "brothers," for example, which in many cases would be most accurately translated "siblings," which sounds silly in English. So some versions, like the NRSV and I think the TNIV, say "brothers and sisters" to get the idea across. Others, like the NIV and the ESV, just say "brothers," but leave it to the reader to realize that women are included as well. Personally, I don't need them to add "and sisters" in order for me to know it's a mixed-gender group, but then again, I've studied Greek. Maybe the "and sisters" helps some people that might not otherwise understand that the word included both.

I like my ESV and I'll probably keep to that, but I'm not going to write off the TNIV. It seems to me that their unusual translation decisions are just an attempt to clarify things for readers unacquainted with the linguistic issues.

Hopper,

Thanks for your comments. I, too, lean towards the more word-for-word translations for my primary use (ESV for home; RSV for church). I think that is because I am familiar with many of the translation issues and don't need "help" to realize, for example, that women are included in the term "brothers."

From a technical perspective, though, I recognize the challenge to translators who can't get that kind of nuance into the text without perhaps overstating it in some cases. Our words just don't handle gender the way Greek does, so it seems translators must err on one side or the other. There are many things that I like about the NRSV, but I am displeased with some places where it loses some literal directness in the name of inclusivity; I am most curious to get my free copy of the TNIV and compare the two side-by-side... I am alert for the concerns, but I'm also hoping that perhaps the TNIV will have developed a new translation technique as an alternative to the NRSV -- something that attempts to communicate the gender nuances, but doesn't lose the meaning meaning involved. Honestly, I don't know if that's the case, but I'm willing to check it out and see what technique they've used.

In the meantime, though, I'm pretty doggone happy with my new ESV Reformation Study Bible.