The TNIV

[Canadian75]

Has anyone bought and or read the TNIV (Today's New International Version)? If so how is it? I personally have no problem with gender accurate versions (I usually read the NRSV). I also read the KJV with no problem either. I just was wondering if anyone had any personal opinions on this, mainly from people that have read some of it. I prefer more literal translations like the NRSV, NASB and KJV, but I was thinking of picking up a copy? Any thoughts?

 

[rural_preacher]

I received a free copy of the TNIV New Testament at its first printing a couple of years ago. I personally don't really see much difference between the TNIV and the NIV. The changes appear to be minimal; although I will stick with the regular NIV for my personal study. My preaching Bible is a KJV/NIV Parallel. I think the TNIV was an unnecessary effort and expense...but that's just my opinion (not worth a plug nickel).

--

 

[Ave Maria]

I received a free copy of the TNIV New Testament at its first printing a couple of years ago. I personally don't really see much difference between the TNIV and the NIV. The changes appear to be minimal; although I will stick with the regular NIV for my personal study. My preaching Bible is a KJV/NIV Parallel. I think the TNIV was an unnecessary effort and expense...but that's just my opinion (not worth a plug nickel).

--

I haven't read the TNIV before but from what I understand, it is an excellent and highly accurate version! I want a free New Testament! Are they still offering them?

 

[theseed]

I haven't read the TNIV before but from what I understand, it is an excellent and highly accurate version! I want a free New Testament! Are they still offering them?

Yes.

http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample.php#INTRODUCTION

 

[theseed]

Some people think that it makes God to be genderless or feminine, but it does not.

 

[theseed]

Free PDF of the TNIV NT

http://www.tniv.info/pdf/TNIV_Bible.pdf

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Why is there the need to translate these documents incorrectly? the TNIV is a dynamic Equivalent translation therefore it translates a thought for thought model. The original authors were guided by God and wrote what he wanted them to write. When you do a thought for thought model often ones translation will be affected by the translators own personal interpretation of what you think the author is saying.

When I look for a translation to buy, I want an essentially literal translation, where the translators by and large just translate the words. Once I have the words the author of the scripture is trying to convey, then I can begin to figure out what the author meant. No translation is 100% free from at least having some "thought for thought" added in though. Mainly because of Idioms and what not. If you were to put somethings into english they just would not make sense, so they'll give the thought for thought as to whats being said in that case.

I personally want what was found in the greek/hebrew not someones thoughts or gender neutrality.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I have no problem with what I read. There are times when 'men' means humankind, and so the TNIV translates it fine.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes.

http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample.php#INTRODUCTION

Yay! Thanks theseed!

 

[Unnamed Servant]

the tniv is gender neutral not gender accurate, there is a big difference, because some of the times it can give the passage a totally inaccurate meaning. I agree with the Lord's envoy, they wrote what they meant. The gender back then is the same gender now.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

the tniv is gender neutral not gender accurate, there is a big difference, because some of the times it can give the passage a totally inaccurate meaning. I agree with the Lord's envoy, they wrote what they meant. The gender back then is the same gender now.

Amen. If we believe the Holy Spirit inspired the text, I see no reason to "dumb it down" for the masses, nor any reason to give a "thought for thought" rendeition of the text. Certainly the biblical authors could have given a "thought for thought" of what they wanted to say if they wanted to. Nor did the Holy Spirit or the authors seek to be gender nuetral. If we believe the Holy Spirit inspired writers, then why take away from the text?

 

[Gold Dragon]

When I look for a translation to buy, I want an essentially literal translation, where the translators by and large just translate the words. Once I have the words the author of the scripture is trying to convey, then I can begin to figure out what the author meant. No translation is 100% free from at least having some "thought for thought" added in though. Mainly because of Idioms and what not. If you were to put somethings into english they just would not make sense, so they'll give the thought for thought as to whats being said in that case.

I personally want what was found in the greek/hebrew not someones thoughts or gender neutrality.

One of the problems with literal translations is that a rigid translation of the greek or hebrew words often misses out on the meaning that is evident through the Greek or Hebrew sentence structure. Dynamic equivalents are often able to capture these instances better.

A basic example could be the common greeting (lay ho ma) in cantonese. A literal translation would translate it to "You good, eh?" A more flexible "dynamic equivalent" translation that is more accurate in meaning but less accurate in wording would be "How are you?".

 

[aReformedPatriot]

One of the problems with literal translations is that a rigid translation of the greek or hebrew words often misses out on the meaning that is evident through the Greek or Hebrew sentence structure. Dynamic equivalents are often able to capture these instances better.

A basic example could be the common greeting (lay ho ma) in cantonese. A literal translation would translate it to "You good, eh?" A more flexible "dynamic equivalent" translation that is more accurate in meaning but less accurate in wording would be "How are you?".

Yes and No, your not entirely accurate.

One of the standards of an essentially literal translation is to be transparent to the original: "Except where a completely literal translation would have been unintelligable to an english reader, and essentially literal translation is transparent to the original text." (Ryken, 24). I would agree that some things are wooden but by and large you can find intelligible english in an essentially literal translation.

Let me give you an example:

Psalm 24 from the ESV:

Psa 24:10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory! Selah.

The NIV:

10 Who is he, this King of glory? The LORD Almighty-

he is the King of glory.

Selah

The ESV is essentially literal, it reflects the true text. The NIV has given a thought for thought rendition. I would reason that while both will suffice one is more correct than the other. By "dumbing down" the NIV has removed a perfectly legitimate refrence to the Hosts (it's citizens) of heaven whom the author specifically pointed out. The Lord is indeed almighty, but it fails to show an aspect of his Lordship that the author intended.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yes and No, your not entirely accurate.

One of the standards of an essentially literal translation is to be transparent to the original: "Except where a completely literal translation would have been unintelligable to an english reader, and essentially literal translation is transparent to the original text." (Ryken, 24). I would agree that some things are wooden but by and large you can find intelligible english in an essentially literal translation.

I don't think I said anything that is in opposition to your points.

I'm not trying to defend the NIV as being better than more literal translations in all cases.

If you follow my posts, you will notice that I quote from the NASB most frequently because it is a highly literal translation. With that said, there are many instances where the NIV or a dynamic equivalent does a better job of translating the meaning of the greek/hebrew than more literal translations.

The verse you quoted may be one of them. Lord Almighty may have been chosen because "host" (tsaba) doesn't have much meaning to the average person today who would probably think of the word hosts in the context of hospitality. I think the verse you quoted may actually be a support of the NIV translation.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I don't think I said anything that is in opposition to your points.

I'm not trying to defend the NIV as being better than more literal translations in all cases.

If you follow my posts, you will notice that I quote from the NASB most frequently because it is a highly literal translation. With that said, there are many instances where the NIV or a dynamic equivalent does a better job of translating the meaning of the greek/hebrew than more literal translations.

The verse you quoted may be one of them. Lord Almighty may have been chosen because "host" (tsaba) doesn't have much meaning to the average person today who would probably think of the word hosts in the context of hospitality. I think the verse you quoted may actually be a support of the NIV translation.

The preface to the NIV explicitly states that actually for the very reason you gave. Dynamic Equivalents has dominated the last 45 years or so and as a result "hosts" is no longer understood, which is sad if you ask me. In anycase they still remove a refrence to whom the Lord is Lord over.
_______________
Anyways, How have you been GD? I havent seen you around much?

 

[Gold Dragon]

The preface to the NIV explicitly states that actually for the very reason you gave. Dynamic Equivalents has dominated the last 45 years or so and as a result "hosts" is no longer understood, which is sad if you ask me. In anycase they still remove a refrence to whom the Lord is Lord over.

I'm not sure why that is sad. All living languages change and evolve. Not using the the word hosts is a response to how the usage of the word has changed in our language. Dynamic equivalents did not cause this change and if they used hosts, it would not cause that usage of the word to return to common usage.

IBS - Background of the NIV

...
Because for most readers today the phrase "the Lord of hosts" and "God of hosts" have little meaning, this version renders them "the Lord Almighty" and "God Almighty." These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, "he who is sovereign over all the 'hosts' (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the 'hosts' (armies) of Israel." For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth ("hosts" or "Almighty") and Shaddai (which can also be translated "Almighty"), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered "the Lord, the Lord Almighty.

Anyways, How have you been GD? I havent seen you around much?

I was away on vacation last week and have been busy studying and focusing on work before my vacation. But I'm back.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I was away on vacation last week and have been busy studying and focusing on work before my vacation. But I'm back. [/QUOTE]

Sounds Good.

 

[Ave Maria]

Personally I'd want a parallel Bible if I could afford one. One with a dynamic version like the NIV and a literal version like the NASB side by side would be best. I think that'd be an excellent way to study. I have always thought it was best to use multiple Bible versions when seriously studying the Bible.