Today's NIV

[Macrina]

I've looked through the TNIV a little.

The biggest blunder I've yet seen in regard to the gender issue is in the first few pages of Genesis. The creation account uses "human beings" rather than the traditional "man." Why is this a blunder? The Hebrew language has no neuter gender. Everything is either male or female. This is irresponsible translation in my opinion. Indicating this in a footnote would be more appropriate if you felt you had to do it....

Actually, there are two Hebrew words that are traditionally translated "man." One means "man/husband/male," and the other one means "person." Therefore "human beings" may be an appropriate translation.

 

[Knight]

Actually, there are two Hebrew words that are traditionally translated "man." One means "man/husband/male," and the other one means "person." Therefore "human beings" may be an appropriate translation.

Interesting.
I was under the impression that there was no neutral gender in the Hebrew language. Where did you get your information?

 

[Macrina]

Interesting.
I was under the impression that there was no neutral gender in the Hebrew language. Where did you get your information?

It's not a matter of neutral gender. It's a matter of vocabulary. Although Hebrew words don't have gender in the sense that Greek, or Spanish, or French words do, there are words that carry different definitions, such as "person" or "man." That's what we're dealing with here... The word adam is defined as "person," or the older usage of the english word "man" (when it is clear that "man" is a generic term). That is the word used in the creation passages. The words ish and ishah mean "man" and "woman," respectively, in their gendered sense. So the original choice to say adam instead of ish or ishah shows that the intended meaning does not specifically include maleness or femaleness. It isn't a matter of grammar, it's vocabulary. What confuses us is that the traditional rendering in English has been "man," because up until recently that has been the commonly accepted gender-neutral term. With changes in English usage, however, I find it reasonable that translators would try for a more accurate distinction.

And my information comes from my Hebrew classes in seminary. This was one of the basic vocabulary points taught by the professor when we were building up a working vocabulary. And when I study the Hebrew text, I use the Masoretic Text and refer when necessary to Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, which is the academic standard for Hebrew studies.

 

[Knight]

It's not a matter of neutral gender. It's a matter of vocabulary. Although Hebrew words don't have gender in the sense that Greek, or Spanish, or French words do, there are words that carry different definitions, such as "person" or "man." That's what we're dealing with here... The word adam is defined as "person," or the older usage of the english word "man" (when it is clear that "man" is a generic term). That is the word used in the creation passages. The words ish and ishah mean "man" and "woman," respectively, in their gendered sense. So the original choice to say adam instead of ish or ishah shows that the intended meaning does not specifically include maleness or femaleness. It isn't a matter of grammar, it's vocabulary. What confuses us is that the traditional rendering in English has been "man," because up until recently that has been the commonly accepted gender-neutral term. With changes in English usage, however, I find it reasonable that translators would try for a more accurate distinction.

And my information comes from my Hebrew classes in seminary. This was one of the basic vocabulary points taught by the professor when we were building up a working vocabulary. And when I study the Hebrew text, I use the Masoretic Text and refer when necessary to Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, which is the academic standard for Hebrew studies.

Thanks for the explanation.
I tend to disagree that this was the motivation behind the TNIV reading but I am willing to let the point go on this particular passage.

If anyone is interested in areas where there are issues with the TNIV translation check out this article by Wayne Grudem:

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/tniv/articles_tniv/2005_0222_article_grudem.php

 

[72_Chev_Truck]

so it seems that people are against this TNIV but I signed up for a free one about 3 weeks ago and it came in the mail today... havnt had the time to look through it

 

[Macrina]

so it seems that people are against this TNIV but I signed up for a free one about 3 weeks ago and it came in the mail today... havnt had the time to look through it

I haven't gotten my free one yet.

Let me know what you think of it...?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

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.

Greetings,

It would seem to me that translating the various plural derivations of pronouns of different forms ( aujtov", ejkei'no", ou\to", o&", etc.) as singular would be counter productive to inclusiveness, but silly me, i've only been fluent in the language for over 25 years.

Of course, the question is begged as to whether or not inclusivity is warrented by either the grammar or the context of a given passage. If one is, for example, speaking of a herd of swine, as in Luke 8, it is obvious that there is no concern for the gender of the swine. The question: Why would one translate something as "gender inclusive" when gender isn't a concern of the narrative one way or the other. It seems to me that one must read the minds of the Biblical writers 2000 years after the fact.

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.

Again, inclusiveness is fine, IF there were women in the audience that is being addressed with the term 'brothers/brethern'. Does this not, as i think about it, go against contemporary English usage as well?

What i mean by the above is as follows: How much of 'gender inclusive' language is an artificial creation bearing no resemblence to how people actually speak? i am certain that everybody on this thread has heard the colloquialism "Hey you guys!", referring to both genders.

It would appear to be self defeating to produce a translation in contemporary English that completely ignores contemporary English usage! Agenda? Perhaps. Contemporary language usage? No way.

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.

This is often the problem with Dynamic Equivalence translations. One never questions whether or not the 'equivalence' is in fact, equal to what the writer was saying, and whose thoughts are really being placed as scripture?

It is for this reason that trained pastors, who can compare translations with each other, and with the original languages are a necessity in the Christian Church.

Personally, i'd take the responsibility to shepherd the flock of God quite seriously. This is not simply 'a minor issue'. None of them are, really.

 

[brightlights]

so it seems that people are against this TNIV but I signed up for a free one about 3 weeks ago and it came in the mail today... havnt had the time to look through it

I just got my free one and I've been reading out of it here and there. It really isn't much different from the NIV. It has a cool cover, too.

 

[Macrina]

It would seem to me that translating the various plural derivations of pronouns of different forms ( aujtov", ejkei'no", ou\to", o&", etc.) as singular would be counter productive to inclusiveness, but silly me, i've only been fluent in the language for over 25 years.

Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. Sorry if I wasn't clear -- From what I understand, something that the TNIV does is rather than use "he" or "she" with a gender-nuetral antecedent, it uses "they." Not the other way around.



My copy arrived today and I'm looking forward to evaluating it for myself. I think I'll need to come to my own conclusion on this matter, since there seems to be such strong rhetoric on both sides.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. Sorry if I wasn't clear -- From what I understand, something that the TNIV does is rather than use "he" or "she" with a gender-nuetral antecedent, it uses "they." Not the other way around.

That actually sounds as if it's a bit more accurate. When one uses the singular form, "He, She, It" are the only alternatives. Rendering singular as plural would suit the writer's purposes (if indeed gender was his concern) better.

OK, no blood no foul...unless one attends a Celtic-Rangers game in Glasgow, then it's no disembowlment no foul, but only for the fans in attendance...ok, Scots football humour is probably not appropriate here.

My copy arrived today and I'm looking forward to evaluating it for myself. I think I'll need to come to my own conclusion on this matter, since there seems to be such strong rhetoric on both sides.

Well, i rather hope that you do not use it as your main study bible. It does seem that the publisher may be pushing quite a bit of this nonsense moreso than the translation committee of the NIV. It appears that the version in all of it's varieties are more market driven than anything else. i do know that the gender neutral version has been around the UK for quite a while.

 

[Macrina]

Well, i rather hope that you do not use it as your main study bible. It does seem that the publisher may be pushing quite a bit of this nonsense moreso than the translation committee of the NIV. It appears that the version in all of it's varieties are more market driven than anything else. i do know that the gender neutral version has been around the UK for quite a while.

I probably wouldn't use is as my main study Bible, as generally I like to use the ESV in parallel with Greek and Hebrew (I know the languages, but can't say as how I'm fluent, heh), but it may have some applications for teaching those who are not as familiar with the Bible. I'll have to read it to see.

And no worries about the football humor.