TNIV Translation

[5stringJeff]

Anyone love this translation?

Anyone hate it?

Anyone else not know much about it (like me)?

Anyone wish to share some pros and/or cons of this translation?

 

[justified]

It wasn't made by the same guys who translated the NIV. The TNIV tries "gender equivalency" (attempting to make what the people who readthe bible understood as genderless be genderless to us) which I am not in favor of doing. That's one issue.

 

[OzSpen]

gopjeff,

To be honest, I have occasionally used it as a translation for my preaching because I like the way it gives the gender neutral in some places where it seems appropriate. Even though I teach NT Greek, I have not examined it enough to give a critical appraisal. I do not know if it has been feminised or if it has given gender-neutral translations where such are considered the intent of the biblical writers.

However, my son, who reads both Greek and Hebrew, does not like its grammatical constructions. I have just emailed him to get his views. I'll post when they come.

You might like to take a read of this review (favourable) and some links to other articles about TNIV: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/tniv.htm

See also:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/dialogue/blombergtniv.pdf

Have you read this debate between Wayne Grudem (anti TNIV) and Mark Strauss (pro TNIV) at: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/tnivdebate.htm

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[OzSpen]

Justified,

You wrote:

It wasn't made by the same guys who translated the NIV. The TNIV tries "gender equivalency" (attempting to make what the people who readthe bible understood as genderless be genderless to us) which I am not in favor of doing. That's one issue.

However, this article affirms the opposite of your statement:

The translation was overseen by the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the same organization responsible for the original NIV. Many of the key TNIV translators had worked on the NIV as well (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/tniv.htm#feb1305)

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[justified]

However, this article affirms the opposite of your statement:

I said same people, not same comittee. The CBT is a standing comittee that does both translation and revision. A portion of the CBT from the 70s is dead, and very few of the original members are still on it. Moreover, the CBT is actually the last stage in the translation process; first, a bunch of other comittees do the translation, submit it to a board for editing, which sends it back, which sends it back, which sends it on to the CBT for final editing, stylistic stuff, and finally approval. Then it is sent out to samples who return their comments, which the CBT takes into account before actual publication. Now, I know a bunch of people who were involved in the original NIV, and none was part of the TNIV.

 

[OzSpen]

Justified,

I understand the process and you stated it well. However, the quote I posted included this statement:

Many of the key TNIV translators had worked on the NIV as well

I'd appreciate knowing your reasons for not supporting the gender-neutral translation philosophy of the TNIV.

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[justified]

I don't think they do it correctly. It is implicitly obvious in most circumstances from the context provided by a typical dynamic-equivalency translation from the NIV or GNB or RSV when a particular passage is meant to be applied universally. Quite frankly, it's a translation theory preference. I believe in dynamic equivalency in a conservative manner, but I think those very subjective questions of interpretation (and that one is more than some might let on) should be left out of the translation process when possible.

 

[Knight]

I'll stick with the NIV for this vein of translations.

Nothing wrong with the way gender is handled there. There was no need to change it.

(BTW, I know many women who agree with me on this and have no problem with it...)

 

[kitkat60]

I am a woman, and I prefer a non-gender neutral translation, mostly because I don't care for how it has been handled in the past. God did make us different than men.

 

[OzSpen]

gopjeff,

As promised, here is my son, Paul's, brief response to the TNIV. He reads both Greek and Hebrew of the Bible. I have just received his email:

Any links to critiques?
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=blomberg+tniv+review

1. Bad grammar - using "they" as a 3rd-person pronoun.
2. Changes from the wording of the NIV that don't actually improve the sense.

Those two things are not a big deal, but in terms of readability, i find the GNB and NLT much better.

This is one Bible student's view, after working with TNIV.

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[filosofer]

I find it hard to accept the "they" as 3rd person singular pronoun. It is awkward English. "Each person should take out their paper."

I think even more disturbing is that sometimes translations (TNIV, NRSV, etc.) change the third person singular to plural (The person said..." becomes "they said..."). However, the specific intent of a text is to apply to an individual not to multiple people. Therefore, changing 3rd singular to 3rd plural is not more accurate, but less accurate. Psalm 8:4 is a classic example of this:

"what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?" TNIV

Compare:

"what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him? ESV

This also has some implications for Christological understanding of texts.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[OzSpen]

Filo,

I find it hard to accept the "they" as 3rd person singular pronoun. It is awkward English. "Each person should take out their paper."

It's awkward English because it is incorrect grammar and should not be included in any English-language literature for public consumption. I find it offensive to use incorrect English grammar in a Bible translation.

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[bsp05mph]

Actually, singlar 'they' is neither awkward nor incorrect grammar. It has a distinguished historical usage, and wasn't considered even remotely 'bad grammar' until the 18th century.

At any rate, what is the alternative? "Each person should take out his or her paper"...? That's even more awkward!

 

[Knight]

At any rate, what is the alternative? "Each person should take out his or her paper"...? That's even more awkward!

The alternative is to stick to the conventinal translation and not force these things on the text...

 

[AnthonyE1778]

It wasn't made by the same guys who translated the NIV. The TNIV tries "gender equivalency" (attempting to make what the people who readthe bible understood as genderless be genderless to us) which I am not in favor of doing. That's one issue.

Indeed, that is sad. Has anybody read the "Politically Correct" Bible? it is absolutely preposterous!

 

[OzSpen]

bsp05mph,

Actually, singlar 'they' is neither awkward nor incorrect grammar. It has a distinguished historical usage, and wasn't considered even remotely 'bad grammar' until the 18th century.

At any rate, what is the alternative? "Each person should take out his or her paper"...? That's even more awkward!

Since we are discussing contemporary English with the TNIV, "they" is a plural pronoun, not a singular pronoun. If "they" refers to a singular antecedent, in contemporary English, the use of "they" is, thus, incorrect grammar.


You ask:

What is the alternative? "Each person should take out his or her paper"

That would be correct, or one could make it all plural, "All people should take out their paper."

This is where some gender-neutral translations can be helpful and do away with the awkward, but grammatically correct, ". . . his or her paper."

Sincerely,
Spencer

 

[justified]

That would be correct, or one could make it all plural, "All people should take out their paper."

This is where some gender-neutral translations can be helpful and do away with the awkward, but grammatically correct, ". . . his or her paper."

You realise that the Greek and Hebrew texts have very different ideas of grammar, and that at times this can be critical to the interpretation of the passage? I dont' think anyone here should be passing judgment on translation grammar. It takes an incredible amount of work to do that stuff.

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

I dont see a problem with the version

 

[GrinningDwarf]

bsp05mph,



Since we are discussing contemporary English with the TNIV, "they" is a plural pronoun, not a singular pronoun. If "they" refers to a singular antecedent, in contemporary English, the use of "they" is, thus, incorrect grammar.


You ask:



That would be correct, or one could make it all plural, "All people should take out their paper."

This is where some gender-neutral translations can be helpful and do away with the awkward, but grammatically correct, ". . . his or her paper."

Sincerely,
Spencer

Using 'they' for third person non-specific gender singular is allowed by the Oxford English Dictionary. I had this one out in college with an English teacher who was a strict grammarian. For example "Someone left their umbrella on the train." She didn't like it, but had to agree that according to the OED, I was technically correct in my usage.

Face it...English just needs a third person non-specific gender singular pronoun.

 

[filosofer]

Face it...English just needs a third person non-specific gender singular pronoun.

Already has that pronoun: "he"

Let's see how long that lasts!



In Christ's love,
filo